Preamble

The House met at half-past Two oclock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENTS) AMENDMENT ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Devolution (Referendum)

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the date of the referendum on Scottish devolution; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): No representations have been made to me. The referendum will be held as soon as reasonably practicable after the Bill has received Royal Assent.

Mr. Knox: I assume that the Secretary of State agrees that the referendum should take place as soon as possible. If it is at all possible, will he give serious consideration to holding it in early September of this year?

Mr. Millan: I do not think that I can go beyond what I have said in my original answer. I certainly do not want to see unnecessary delay, and we shall hold the referendum as soon as practical after we get the Bill on to the statute book.

Mr. Buchan: Is the Secretary of State aware that the crucial point of the referendum was never put in our discussions? That was the second question, whether Scotland should go independent. Has

he noticed that Lord Home of the Hirsel called for precisely such a question yesterday in the other place.

Mr. Millan: It is a very unusual alliance. I have heard the argument from my hon. Friend on numerous occasions. He also knows the Government's view on this matter, which has not changed.

Mr. Reid: If there is an overwhelming "Yes" by 39 per cent. of the electorate at the poll, will that not lead to a serious political confrontation? Will the Minister make it clear that there is no such thing as a mandatory referendum in the United Kingdom? There can only be a consultative referendum. No matter how the Scots people decide, the final decision remains with the House.

Mr. Millan: The 40 per cent. rule places an obligation on the Secretary of State to lay a certain order before the House, but, of course, the ultimate decision is for the House to take.

Mr. Sillars: Given that the Bill receives Royal Assent in July, what practical problems will there be which will prevent a referendum being held in September?

Mr. Millan: It obviously depends on a number of considerations, which I do not think I have to spell out to the House. The important thing to do at the moment is to get the Bill on the statute book. We are very confident of doing that, and I hope that we shall do so before the Summer Recess.

Argyll Islands

Mr. MacCormick: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an official visit to the Argyll islands.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor MacKenzie): My right hon. Friend has no plans for a visit at present.

Mr. MacCormick: Bearing in mind the Minister's reply, is he aware that in the islands of my constituency there is much feeling about the closure of Scofisco, upon which not only the people who work in them depend but also, to some extent, the fishermen? Is there any chance of action being taken to alleviate the situation?

Mr. MacKenzie: I am aware of the general concern about the jobs of the people who work for the processing


plants and of the fishermen both in Argyll and Tarbert. I am given to understand now that the Scottish Development Agency is having discussions with the receiver and with the Highlands and Islands Board on the possibility of maintaining these operations.

Springburn

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will pay a visit to Springburn.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to do so.

Mr. Buchanan: I am sorry to hear that that is the case. Will my right hon. Friend change his mind? As he will be aware, his Department approved the Springburn plan in 1963. Is is not about time we were having a report on how that plan was developing, particularly with regard to the health service, as many surgeries of medical practitioners are disappearing from the area and the health centre has become of urgent necessity?

Mr. Ewing: I do not want to comment on the details of the Springburn plan, but I can tell my hon. Friend that the Greater Glasgow Health Board is likely to make a final cost submission to my Department in the next few weeks in relation to the health centre. All being well, it is expected that it will be able to make a start on building in January 1979, with the building being completed early in 1981.

School Meals

Mr Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest estimate of the number of children in Scotland receiving school meals; and how this compares with the corresponding figure for last year.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): The provisional January census figure is 427,359, This was 47·4 per cent. of the pupils present, which compares with 51·2 per cent. in January 1977.

Mr. Canavan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the main reason for this decrease has been the 67 per cent. increase in the price of school meals and the fact that many parents do not realise that their children are now eligible for

free school meals under the new regulations? Will he see to it, therefore, that parents are made aware of their eligibility for free school meals for their children? Will he also tell my good friend the Chancellor that he had better make an announcement in next month's Budget speech of a reversal of the Government's previous decision to withdraw the school meals subsidy, otherwise it will have disastrous consequences for the living standards of people, especially the children of working-class parents?

Mr. McElhone: I am aware that the Chancellor always listens to my hon. Friend. I have no doubt that that message will be getting across. I know that my hon. Friend has a deep interest in the problem. Recovery is taking place, as is shown by the fact that the January percentage of 47·4 is an increase from the 45·6 level reached in October 1977.

Mrs. Bain: Will the Minister also bear in mind that average family income in Scotland is substantially lower than it is elsewhere in the United Kingdom? [Hon. Members: "Not true."] Will he also take steps to ensure that, when people apply for their youngsters to have free school meals, there is no discriminatory process which means that the children are subjected to pressures within the schools?

Mr. McElhone: The hon. Lady has developed a remarkable consistency for providing inaccurate figures. She has continued with that theme today. What she said is untrue. The uptake of free meals rose to 17·3 per cent. in January 1978, and this is the highest level that it has ever reached. This is due mainly to the recommendation from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to schoolmasters to publicise the facts of the matter, and every child will get a note about the potential availability of free meals. That is to the credit not only of COSLA but of the headmasters and staff of our schools.

Mr. Skinner: Will my hon. Friend accept, however, from an Englishman, I think—one can never be sure about these matters—that discrimination takes place and that there is no device or plan yet implemented in any school which is foolproof and which prevents the separation of the sheep from the goats? There is only one answer to this problem. Means


tests have to be tolerated by many adults in this country and in Scotland, but, in my view, for children they are horrifying and should be abolished. Let us get rid of school meals charges completely and have a transfer of resources, as we said in the manifesto in 1974.

Mr. McElhone: As my hon. Friend says, he thinks that he is an Englishman. I do not think that anyone has any doubts about that. There was a genuine concern in the past about the fact that for free school meals some local authorities issued tickets that were different from tickets for paid meals. As far as I know, local authorities in Scotland have ensured that children who receive free school meals get tickets of the same colour as those given to children whose parents pay. If that is not so and my hon. Friend knows something about Scotland that I do not know, I shall certainly check the matter and report to him.

Westray (Mink Farm)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland who will pay the costs of the inquiry into setting up a mink farm on the island of Westray.

Mr. Millan: I shall meet the direct costs of setting up the inquiry. Other parties will in general be responsible for their own expenses.

Mr. Grimond: How much expense will fall upon the Orkney Islands Council? As the Minister well knows, this is a somewhat peculiar inquiry, in that it may not be held at all, and most of the objectors come from furth of the islands. How much expenditure will fall locally?

Mr. Millan: I think that the answer is "Very little", because, as I understand it, it was from that point of view a comparatively simple inquiry. I do not think that much expense will be involved for anyone.

Mr. Watt: Will the Minister pay special attention to the outcome of this inquiry and be aware that mink have now reached epidemic proportions throughout the rest of Scotland, and that it would be most unwise to allow this dangerous animal on to an island?

Mr. Millan: It was really for that reason that I made a revocation order. The inquiry is into that order. Beyond

that, given that we shall have an inquiry, I do not think that it would be right for me to comment further.

Dr. M. S. Miller: If Scotland is so poor, who will buy the mink?

Scottish Development Agency

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the work of the Scottish Development Agency.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: For the activities of the Agency until 31st March 1977, I refer the hon. Member to its report for 1976–77, a copy of which is in the Library. Since that date, the Agency has continued its valuable work of furthering Scottish economic development.

Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that it is quite wrong that an organisation that spends as much public money as the SDA does should be subject to virtually no scrutiny by Parliament? Will he agree, therefore, to reappoint, or to recommend the reappointment of, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, so that we may look at the affairs of the SDA and at how it spends its money, particularly as most of the money that it spends comes from taxes on profitable industry?

Mr. MacKenzie: It is not right to say, as the hon. Gentleman does, that the SDA is not accountable to the House of Commons. Indeed, the Chief Executive of the SDA is an officer who accounts to the Public Accounts Committee. In the House we have had many opportunities of questioning the work of the Agency. It will be within the hon. Member's recollection that we debated the SDA's work in the Scottish Grand Committee during an Estimates debate. I am bound to say that whilst this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Lord President, when last we had a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs—which, incidentally, we started, in 1969—the hon. Member and his colleagues decided to scrap it, in 1972, for the very good and simple reason that they could not get their own Back Benchers to attend.

Mr. Crawford: Will the Minister remind the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) that the Tories voted against the establishment of the SDA? The SNP does not oppose it. Will


the Minister also remind the hon. Member for Cathcart that by cavilling at the SDA he is saying that he is against the creation of jobs in Scotland? Will the Minister further remind the hon. Member of his monstrous, scandalous and disgraceful about-turn when in 1974 the hon. Member said that he was in favour of a Scottish Assembly with economic powers?

Mr. MacKenzie: I am sometimes not quite sure what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) is in favour of concerning the SDA. He comes here, he makes public comments in the Press in which he batters the living daylights out of the SDA, and the next minute he thinks that it is a good thing. I am not sure where the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) stands on the question of the SDA, either.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the effect of the SDA is non-existent in the Hamilton constituency? We have had two factories empty for the last seven years and still have not fulfilled the promise that we made following the cessation of the new town at Stonehouse for an industrial estate at Candersyde.

Mr. MacKenzie: I am not prepared to accept what my hon. Friend says. In addition to the normal industrial investments by the SDA, which account for about £30 million, there has been a factory programme of £44 million and another scheme of about £43 million for environmental improvements. I am sure that Hamilton benefits as much as anywhere else.

Mr. Fairgrieve: I have two short questions for the Minister. Is there any reason why the SDA cannot do the job that it was set up to do without taking a 51 per cent. equity stake in firms? Secondly, will the SDA be prepared to sell back into the private sector firms that it owns?

Mr. MacKenzie: The SDA does exactly the job that it was set up to do. It was set up to be not just a Government Department. It was set up with the necessary guidelines, which we have all discussed, to have an entrepreneurial role in the regeneration of Scottish industry.

Therefore, it has the role of industrial investment and environmental improvement, and advance factory building.
On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, concerning properties taken over by the SDA and investments, some properties have already been sold back to private companies.

Mr. Beith: Is the Minister really happy about the fact that the SDA should have put over £800,000 into an entirely unsuccessful attempt to prop up the Scofisco project, with the result that fish processing firms in my constituency continue to work at well below capacity?

Mr. MacKenzie: This is something that we must put into perspective. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the prospects of other companies in his constituency and elsewhere. Of course, objections were received from a number of these not disinterested people. But the SDA has a role, as have the Welsh Development Agency and the National Enterprise Board, to promote companies that it thinks will be successful and will give a good return.

Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that it is open to any firm to apply for SDA support and that most hon. Members on this side of the House want to see the SDA pursuing a much more vigorous policy in the development of new jobs? Will he ask it to approach all Scottish-based enterprises and ask them what obstacles there are to expansion, and how these can be removed by SDA action?

Mr. MacKenzie: The people to whom my hon. Friend refers, who want to expand, can go to the Secretary of State's Scottish Economic Planning Department, which offers benefits in the form of regional development grants and selective financial assistance. We encourage this by seminars and publications. The SDA has taken on a number of investments where it thinks that there is a good chance of viability and profitability and an opportunity to encourage more jobs. The Chairman of the SDA said recently that, taking all these functions together, there is a prospect of saving and promoting about 30,000 jobs in Scotland—and 30,000 jobs is nothing to be sneezed at.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the financial control


exercised by the Scottish Development Agency.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the SDA is not at all sure what its financial responsibilities are and what sort of control it should be exercising, and that it has taken more than five weeks to reply to a letter of mine on that rather important if simple point? Further, is he aware that in evidence to the Expenditure Committee last year it was said that the NEB and the SDA would operate as first-class companies? In these circumstances, is the SDA taking responsibility for the creditors of its subsidiaries that go into liquidation? If so, how much has been paid out so far?

Mr. MacKenzie: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that some time after we set up the Agency industrial guidelines were agreed and published. Those are the guidelines that the Agency now operates. The hon. Gentleman has said that it takes many weeks for the Agency to reply to a letter, but clearly that is not a matter for me.

Mr. Buchan: Does my right hon. Friend accept that financial control by the House is important but that more important is the success of the SDA, which depends on the extent to which it can involve itself with firms either by part-share public ownership or by full public ownership? Is it not gross hypocrisy on the part of the Scottish National Party to claim that it supports the Agency when it attacked it and tried to extract any teeth it had by attempting to remove the parts of the Bill providing for public ownership and public investment?

Mr. MacKenzie: The SDA has been much maligned by both the Opposition and the SNP. In fact, I believe that the Agency does a worthwhile job in Scotland. I have already indicated in answer to an earlier Question that it has an important factory role, an important environmental role, and an important role in industrial investment. Although we have heard a great deal about two or three disappointments, it is worth bearing in mind that there are 26 or 27 companies where the Agency has had success, notably with Cummins, and has

safeguarded and provided a considerable number of new jobs for the people of Scotland.

Mr. Crawford: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Conservative Party should stop the monstrous and scandalous vilification of senior personnel of the Agency? Were not the Conservatives being totally hypocritical when they voted against the establishment of the Agency?

Mr. MacKenzie: In the Estimates debate last year I said that leading members of the Conservative Party were much more concerned about the size of the lavatory of the chairman of the Agency than about the valuable work that the Agency was doing. I continue to maintain that stance.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Bearing in mind that it has ben reported that Scofisco will suffer a loss of about £750,000, will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that many people in the fishing industry stand to lose something as a result? Will he say what consultations took place with those with experience in the fishing industry and in fish processing before the Agency became concerned with that firm? Is he aware that many of those concerned in the industry were worried that insufficient homework had been done in relation to that enterprise?

Mr. MacKenzie: Before the SDA makes this or any other kind of investment, it listens carefully to outside advice. It employs independent consultants, who do a first-class job on matters of this kind.
The hon. Gentleman will recall that there was very strong pressure from many fishermen in Scotland for the SDA to take the action that it took. If it had not taken that action, many of the fish processors and the fishermen would have been out of jobs a long time ago.

Mr. Sillars: Does the Minister of State agree that we should deprecate this constant sniping at the SDA by Conservative Members who do not have the guts to say that they would repeal the legislation and declare it null and void?
Will he confirm that if the Scottish Development Agency is to achieve a high success rate, it must take risks, and that we in the House of Commons must accept the odd failure? Will he convey to the


board, the Chief Executive and the Chairman of the SDA that the Scottish Socialist movement has a great deal of confidence in the Agency and that we hope that it will not be inhibited by the one or two errors that have recently been made?

Mr. MacKenzie: I am glad to hear my hon. Friend say just that. It is discouraging to the Chairman, the Chief Executive and the board of the SDA if they are constantly being sniped at for the few disappointments they have had and if they are given no credit by any Opposition Members for their remarkable achievements in this sphere.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister agree that he and the Labour Party have a record of which to be ashamed in the provision of jobs in Scotland? The job of the House of Commons is to make sure that public money is well spent. Does he accept that, whether we have one view or another about various activities, it is important to make sure that public money, taken in taxes from profitable, successful firms, is wisely used?

Mr. MacKenzie: I agree that it is important that taxpayers' money should be well spent and that it should be spent on providing jobs. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that message very much to heart. If the Opposition had had their way we would not have had the jobs in British Leyland in Bathgate, in shipbuilding, or in Chrysler, and we would not have had many of the jobs provided by the Scottish Development Agency.

Hampden Park

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the results of discussions he has had with the appropriate authorities regarding the provision of a national sports stadium in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. McElhone: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to proposals for the improvement of Hampden Park. I have been keeping in close touch with the local authorities and the other interested bodies and have undertaken to consider any agreed scheme put to me. When I have received such a scheme, I shall be glad to discuss it with the interested bodies and make a decision as soon as possible.

Mr. Dempsey: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it is probable that Scotland will be playing host to World Cup football in 1986 and that he will still be Minister for sport on that date? Therefore, will he give the most sympathetic consideration to representations made to his Department and do his utmost to ensure that at least 100,000 spectators can be accommodated at that stadium in view of the unbelievable scramble for tickets for these attractive football matches?

Mr. McElhone: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. I am not sure whether I shall be in the Assembly, but certainly it will be a Labour Minister for sport when the Assembly is established. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will be there to support me when we open the new Hampden Park.
I have read in the newspapers about a proposed scheme for improving Hampden Park and I have written to the bodies concerned and invited them to discuss this matter with me. Until they put proposals on the table I cannot say any more, but I shall want to know what we will get for the £8 million and who will have ownership of Hampden Park. There are various other points that will have to be discussed, and we shall have to consider the approach roads and the inconvenience to people who live around Hampden Park.

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I appeal to hon. Members for a return to Celtic brevity?

Mr. Welsh: Does not the Minister consider it a disgrace that in World Cup year our national football stadium does not measure up to the achievements of our national football team? Will he ensure that cash is made available to transform Hampden Park into a national multi-sports complex that is worthy of the name?

Mr. McElhone: The only thing that I can say about the football scene is to comment on the disgraceful attitude of Scottish nationalists last year at Wembley who were singing and chanting "Hate the English".

Mr. Heffer: Can my hon. Friend tell the House what is the national sport in


Scotland—apart from the SNP bashing the English?

Mr. McElhone: It certainly depends on the part of Scotland from which one comes. I would not like to give a decision on that.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Would it not be more helpful for the Minister to take the initiative instead of giving a list of questions and waiting for someone else to answer them? Is he referring to a national sports stadium or simply to a football stadium? A national sports stadium would be a much more viable project and would ensure the future of Hampden Park far better than as merely a football venue.

Mr. McElhone: This is a purely private enterprise project. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) cannot claim more and more cuts in public expenditure and at the same time ask for a £20 million project for Hampden Park. If £20 million is available, I have priorities other than Hampden Park. However, my hon. Friends and I are prepared to consider the proposals for an £8 million scheme proffered in the national Press. As I said earlier, I hope to have an early meeting with the bodies concerned.

Woodside

Mr. Crawford: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to visit Woodside.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Crawford: Is the Minister aware of local feeling about the shocking, monstrous and scandalous state of the A94 oil route through Woodside? When will he channel some of the revenues from Scottish oil into making the A94 a proper road?

Mr. MacKenzie: I am bound to say that when the hon. Member asks this sort of shot-in-the-dark Question I shall give the answer that I always give. If he puts down a specific Question on the Order Paper, I shall answer it.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister visit Woodside, which is part of my constituency of North Aberdeen, where he will see great changes taking place? He will see the building of many houses to benefit the people of Aberdeen and great

interest in the National Health Service, which also benefits the people of Aberdeen. In fact, Woodside encapsulates the future of the Labour role in Scotland and, therefore, it should be commended to all other Woodsides in the country.

Mr. MacKenzie: As my hon. Friend points out, there are a great many Wood-sides in Scotland. I am sure that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) will bear this in mind when he next puts down a Question. The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) were very sensible, and I am sure that he will still be sitting for that constituency after the next General Election. Perhaps he may even be joined by a colleague from Perth and East Perthshire on this side of the House.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister visit Perth and East Perthshire rather than Aberdeen, North—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions will get completely out of order if hon. Members switch around like that.

Scottish Assembly (Expenditure)

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total expenditure incurred so far in the acquisition and conversion of the formal building for the Scottish Assembly in Edinburgh, and what is his latest estimate of the expenditure still to be incurred?

Mr. Harry Ewing: Expenditure to mid-February was £1·6 million, including the cost of purchasing the Royal High School. There remains to be spent the balance of the £3·25 million indicated in the explanatory and financial memorandum.

Mr. Gow: What plans do the Government have for the use of this building if the Scotland Bill does not reach the statute book or the referendum does not achieve a minimum of 40 per cent. in favour?

Mr. Ewing: We do not anticipate any of those eventualities arising. It is very dangerous for Ministers to answer hypothetical questions.

Mr. David Steel: Does the figure that the Minister mentioned include the cost of removing the aerosal-can SNP slogans from the front of the building?

Mr. Ewing: I think that the right hon. Member has raised a very serious point. I take this opportunity, particularly with a by-election in Glasgow, of saying that one of the greatest acts of vandalism in Scotland at election times is the way in which road signs are defaced by the SNP. I wish that SNP Members would stop laughing and take this point seriously.

Mr. Heffer: In all seriousness, will the Minister take note of the Question tabled by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow)? What will happen if the Scottish people decide not to go ahead with this idea? What will the Government do with the building, and how will they use it? Will they sell it off, or what will happen? Is it not a scandal that we should have got this far, spending this amount of money, before the Scottish people have made up their minds?

Mr. Ewing: The money is being spent with the full approval of Parliament. We are certainly not spending the money without that approval having been secured. Not only do I take account of what is said by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) but, even more important, I take more account of what is said by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).

Mr. Reid: What discussions has the Minister had with representatives of the newspapers and broadcasting authorities about facilities in the Assembly? Does he appreciate that the present plans will mean that the Press, without a Lobby system, will sit on the Floor of the Assembly and that its telephones will be only a few feet away from the Chamber?

Mr. Ewing: I have constant discussions with the media on the facilities that are to be provided when the Assembly is set up. The media accept that the Assembly is not being established for media purposes. The first priority is to establish the Assembly for Members and for the people of Scotland. Within that context, we shall fit in the requirements of the media.

Mr. Sillars: Does not the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) add greater urgency to holding the referendum as soon as possible? Is not September the best date for the referendum so that my

hon. Friend will not be bothered with Questions of this kind after we secure a "Yes" vote in the referendum?

Mr. Ewing: I have noticed lately that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) appears to be desperately anxious to fix a September date for the referendum. I wonder whether he has already fixed his holidays for October, November and December. There are all sorts of possibilities open to him.

Dundee Harbour

Mr. Gordon Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an official visit to Dundee harbour.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: My right hon. Friend has no present plans to do so.

Mr. Wilson: I am disappointed at the fact that the Minister has no intention of visiting Dundee harbour to consult the port authority on plans for a roll-on-roll-off facility, as that project is being held back by lack of grant-aid facilities. Will he ask the Scottish Economic Planning Department to examine the situation as a matter of urgency?

Mr. MacKenzie: I should like first to see a further extension of oil-related employment in the Dundee area. I know that local authorities and harbour authorities are considering this matter seriously at present. I also know that the port authority is actively considering the possibility mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. We shall examine any suggestion that is made to us.

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill

Mr. Robin F. Cook: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to introduce a Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I cannot give a specific date at present.

Mr. Cook: Will the Minister take note of the widespread anxiety mentioned in questions on the Business Statement recently about the prospects for such a Bill in a future Queen's Speech. Will he also bear in mind the fact that there is widespread interest in Scotland about the urgency for such a measure relating to the appropriateness of sentencing policy, and will he ensure that a Bill is laid this Session?

Mr. Ewing: It is not in my power to give the House that assurance that a Bill will be laid in this or any other Session. That is not within my remit of responsibility. I rest on what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said in business questions last Thursday, namely, that there is some legislation that we should like to introduce in all sorts of areas which it might not be possible to introduce this Session. We shall have to wait and see the outcome of any discussions that are taking place.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the Minister aware that in dealing with younger offenders there is considerable scope for making much better use of the facility for much more appropriate sentences? Will he ensure that when a Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill is introduced this aspect involving younger offenders will be given high priority?

Mr. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman mentions an important matter. We are at a stage when we must consider the kind of sentences given to youngsters under 21. We are considering whether we should group all three classes of sentence and leave it to the Prison Service to allocate offenders to various institutions, or whether we should continue as in the past. That is one of the matters that we are considering.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Minister accept that if this Bill is to be delayed it will create great concern in Scotland, since it is felt that there should be substantial changes in methods of dealing with offenders, and it would be regretted if such delay were to affect both law and order and penal reform in Scotland?

Mr. Ewing: It will be regretted if there is any delay in terms of law and order. That is why the Government are desperately anxious to increase respect for law and order and why, in a few weeks' time we shall be launching a major publicity and advertising campaign to attract more men to the police force.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Did not the Government give notice that this legislation would be introduced? If the Scottish Office is unable to persuade the Government to find time for it, is the Minister aware that this will be regretted in Scotland?

Mr. Ewing: I am not sure about the degree of regret in regard to this legislation, but the Government are desperately anxious to ensure that law and order have a proper place in the society. I must emphasise that a major amount of time on the Floor of the House has been concerned with Scottish legislation. I would not want the impression to go back to Scotland from this Question Time that Scotland has been starved of parliamentary time. That is simply not true.

Economic Prospects

Mr. Fairgrieve: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on prospects for the Scottish economy over the forthcoming six months.

Mr. Millan: As I told the hon. Member on 15th February, our economic prospects will be influenced by developments in world trade as well as the extent to which we can reduce our rate of domestic inflation. Since then the annual rate of increase has come down to single figures.

Mr. Fairgrieve: But, as I said to the Minister on the same date, if the Government are genuine about reducing unemployment, there is only one sector in which that can be achieved in Scotland, namely, in the small business sector. That sector is now hampered by Government regulations. Will the Minister consider examining those regulations, and particularly the provisions of the Employment Protection Act, which is destroying employment?

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman knows that many matters affecting small businesses are now being examined. I agree that the small business sector has an important part to play in the Scottish economy, but, of course, it does not by any means comprise the whole of the Scottish economy.

Mr. Grimond: Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about the effect on the Scottish economy of the weakness of the dollar? Has it affected Scottish exports, and what is the effect on the subsidiaries of American companies in Scotland?

Mr. Millan: Following uncertainty in currency values, I do not think that I can distinguish between effects on the United Kingdom economy as a whole compared


with the effects on Scotland as part of that economy. The right hon. Gentleman will know the efforts made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the last few days on the subject of the expansion of world trade.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister say something about the contribution to the Scottish economy of Yarrow Shipbuilders, Glasgow? Is it not a fact that Yarrow would have no future at all if Parliament as a whole had voted in the same way as Conservatives and SNP Members of Parliament, who voted against aircraft and shipbuilding being taken into public ownership, since taking them into public ownership saved thousands of jobs for workers on Clydeside and elsewhere in Scotland?

Mr. Millan: I agree with my hon. Friend that Scottish ownership of the shipbuilding industry and the considerable sums of public money put into that industry in Scotland have saved a considerable number of jobs. Anything that would damage the Scottish shipbuilding industry—either Tory opposition to shipbuilding nationalisation or the bizarre statements of the SNP candidate at Garscadden about Yarrow—should be treated with considerable anger by the people of Scotland.

Mrs. Bain: Does the Minister accept that the SNP Members are proud at having a high-principled candidate at Garscadden who is not afraid to lay his views on the line, and are surprised at the views of the Labour Party, which are not in line with those of its founding father, Keir Hardie? What representations has he made to the Department of Industry and the Common Market to allow the continuation and expansion of the Intervention Fund in view of the importance of the shipbuilding industry in the West of Scotland?

Mr. Millan: We are anxious to see the Intervention Fund continuing. I am delighted that any SNP candidate is frank about his party's policies. I only wish Conservative Members would be equally frank.

Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that the high and apparently rising level of redundancy payments sometimes received by redundant workers does much to ease and humanise immediate redundancy difficulties but blunts public protest and the

underlying opposition to the high level of unemployment? Therefore, will he accept that the reduction of unemployment remains the overwhelming priority of Members on the Labour Benches?

Mr. Millan: I agree with my hon. Friend that we must get the unemployment figure down. Although we wish to see adequate redundancy payments made, that is very much a second-best policy. The primary consideration must remain the saving of jobs.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman not rather ashamed of having been elected on a manifesto which said that the 1974 rates of unemployment were intolerable, when unemployment has doubled since then and we now have a further sign with reports of 150 redundancies at Drumchapel, in the Garscadden constituency? Will he encourage his party and the SNP to continue being frank, since the latest evidence of political opinion in Scotland is a dramatic win for the Conservatives from the nationalists on a 60 per cent. poll in the Perth constituency?

Mr. Millan: I have already made clear on numerous occasions that the present level of unemployment is far too high. I am glad that there was some reduction in the seasonally adjusted numbers of unemployed in January and February, but it was quite small, and I want to see it coming down much more rapidly.

Rating Revaluation

Mr. Lambie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Cunninghame and Kyle and Carrick districts following the recent revaluation of properties for rating purposes; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Millan: I have had 19 letters from Kyle and Carrick and six from Cunninghame. If ratepayers in these districts are dissatisfied with their new valuations, they have rights of complaint to the assessor and of appeal to the local valuation committee.

Mr. Lambie: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great anger in the Cunninghame and Kyle and Carrick districts over what appears to be discrimination against local ratepayers in the recent revaluation,


especially against business and commercial interests? Will he act on the proposal that I put to him that, as a transitional arrangement, he should ensure that no ratepayer pays more than a 10 per cent. increase, because of revaluation, this year and in subsequent years?

Mr. Millan: I have answered questions before about transitional arrangements. I discussed the matter specifically with COSLA, and its unanimous view, which I share, was that transitional arrangements would not be desirable. If there is any feeling in the areas mentioned by my hon. Friend that standards applied to the revaluation are unfair compared with standards applied elsewhere, there is an appeal machinery open to ratepayers.
This is not a matter on which I have specific locus. One expects that on revaluation the rates of some properties will go up more than those of some others. If that were not the general expectation there would be no point in having a revaluation, because it is intended to adjust valuations to current circumstances. Otherwise they become increasingly out of date.

Mr. David Steel: The right hon. Gentleman says that he has no locus in this matter, but will he accept that there is a good deal of irritation and, in some cases, anxiety about the revaluation? Could he not discuss with the assessors and the local authorities the possibility of having explanations of the revaluation—in non-officialese—put in the mail so that householders understand what is going on?

Mr. Millan: We have already done that. The Scottish Office played a part in drawing up a leaflet, in agreement with COSLA, and copies were sent to every ratepayer in Scotland. We have made considerable effort to explain to people what the revaluation is about. Naturally, those who have gained—they are a substantial number and include, in general, domestic ratepayers—do not make a great deal of fuss. They are happy. Those who have suffered relatively do make a good deal of fuss; I do not criticise them for that. But it would be misleading to give the impression that there is a seething mass of discontent about revaluation in Scotland. That is

certainly not my impression, though I realise what is happening in areas about which I have had representations.

Mr. Younger: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, from the material that I and many others have sent to him, there is overwhelming evidence that the general level of valuations in Ayrshire is being deliberately raised, as a matter of policy, over that in other areas? Bearing in mind the rating and valuation Acts, is this not illegal?

Mr. Millan: If the hon. Gentleman is making allegations of illegality, he should make them in more specific terms. Is he saying that assessors have behaved illegally? That is a serious charge. I have said that there is an appeal procedure available and I seriously suggest to ratepayers in these areas that if they are dissatisfied they must use the appeal procedure. It would be foolish of them simply to make points to their hon. Members, and to make political points, without also protecting their interests by taking the necessary steps to appeal. I strongly recommend them to do that.

Mr. MacCormick: We all appreciate the role played by the assessors in these matters, but does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the people of Argyll have been hit second only to the people of the Cunninghame district in relation to the new revaluation? Does he think that it is satisfactory for us as politicians to wash our hands of the affair? Would it not be better to institute an inquiry to ensure that people are not asked to pay too much?

Mr. Millan: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is asking me to inquire into. Any revaluation affects one ratepayer and one area differently from others. I should be surprised—though do not have the exact figures—if the rates paid by the average domestic ratepayer in Argyll, even after revaluation, are out of line with rates in the rest of Scotland. I suspect—I shall be happy to check this—that they are still a good deal lower than the average paid by domestic ratepayers in the rest of Scotland. That fact, as well as the increases, must be taken into account.

Assembly (Standing Orders)

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what


preparations are being made to provide the proposed Scottish Assembly with discussion papers on alternative forms of Standing Orders for the Assembly.

Mr. Harry Ewing: My right hon. Friend aims to ensure that the preparations made for the Assembly will include briefing on procedures for elected Assemblies.

Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is particularly important that matters such as the declaration and registration of Members' interests and the open access to information for Members should be discussed before the Assembly is elected and not imposed by the Assembly afterwards?

Mr. Ewing: We cannot set up discussion groups and committees to have discussions with a body that is not yet in being. On my hon. Friend's general proposition, the Assembly will want to pay regard to what happens in this House when framing its Standing Orders and procedures, because the Standing Orders and procedures that my right hon. Friend is to prepare will take effect only in the run-in period of the Assembly. Thereafter, it will be for the Assembly to establish its own procedures.

Mr. Watt: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that much of the desire for devolution arises from annoyance over the ineffectiveness of Westminster government and the continuation of outdated methods that are perpetuated in this House? Would it not be much better for the Assembly to start with a clean sheet and to introduce its own Standing Orders?

Mr. Ewing: We are aware of the ineffectiveness of Opposition parties. That is one of the main reasons why, after February 1974, the Government introduced aid to Opposition parties. I am beginning to have doubts about the value that we are getting for the money.

Mr. Canavan: In view of the recent events in Garscadden, would it not be a good idea for the Scottish Assembly to have a special rest room for SNP nannies and Tory Party nanny goats?

Mr. Ewing: In relation to the Tories, I suspect that the rest room would need to have a chimney in it, and in relation to the SNP, I suspect that the rest room would need to have space for changing nappies and feeding babies.

Mr. Speaker: I got into trouble the other day over a reference to animals.

House Building

Mr. Younger: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with current progress in house building in Scotland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): I am satisfied that authorities are assessing their housing needs as a whole, including the need for the building of new houses, and that these will be reflected in the housing plans which they have been asked to submit to my right hon. Friend annually.

Mr. Younger: How can the Minister be satisfied with anything when the number of houses completed in 1977 was only 26,772—the lowest total for more than 20 years, and lower than in any year of the last Conservative Government? How does that square with the Labour Party's pledge at the last election:
The next Labour Government will … reverse the disastrous fall in house building"?

Mr. Brown: It is true that it is almost as bad as in the years of the Conservative Government before 1964. [Interruption.] It is almost as bad. Do not let us argue about a few houses. The figures are almost as bad as the average for the three years preceding the election of the Labour Government in 1964, when the need, presumably, was much greater. I thought that we had agreed to get away from the numbers game. There was no limitation on the building of new houses until last year, and the figures reflect the greater need for modernisation and rehabilitation. That is the view of the local authorities concerned.

Mr. Robert Hughes: When my hon. Friend considers the housing plans submitted by local authorities, will he pay particular regard to the authorities that submit realistic housing plans and not regard them as bids for the money that is available? Will he take into account the capability of local authorities to meet their plans when allocating the money?

Mr. Brown: Yes, that is only one of the factors that we shall take into account. The borrowing allocation for 1978–79 is increasing. I never know what the SNP policy is on anything, but I should like to know whether the official Opposition are


asking me to increase public expenditure on housing.

Roads (Western Isles)

Mr. Donald Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will increase the amount of grant for township roads in the Western Isles.

Mr. McElhone: I regret that the resources for the township road programme as a whole do not permit any increase at present.

Mr. Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that answer will be received with regret in my constituency, especially in areas such as the Island of Harris, which has many communities still without roads and is an area that has had the least access to job opportunities and development? Will he give reconsideration to disbursing some of the funds for the congested districts, which I understand are still at the discretion of the Secretary of State?

Mr. McElhone: I am prepared to consider that point. I should tell the right hon. Gentleman that the grant allocation for 1978–79 is the biggest of all the five authorities concerned.

SOUTH AFRICAN IMMIGRATION ORGANISATION (PTY) LIMITED

Mr. Canavan: asked the Lord Advocate, further to his reply of 20th February, whether he will now prosecute the South African Immigration Organisation (Pty) Limited of 104 West George Street, Glasgow, in the light of evidence now supplied to him.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): The information supplied to me in connection with this matter was insufficient to enable a decision to be taken. I have instructed that further inquiries be made.

Mr. Canavan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to pursue this matter in view of the fact that on the evidence submitted to him, including a letter from the Department of Employment, it is quite clear that the company was not registered as an employment agency under the Employment Agencies Act 1973? Does he agree that it is clear

that the firm is collaborating to support apartheid and is misleading many people into emigrating to South Africa by painting that land as a place flowing with milk and honey, whereas in reality it is ruled by one of the most immoral and unscrupulous Governments in the world?

The Lord Advocate: My hon. Friend has painted a black picture of South Africa. I hope that you will forgive me for that, Mr. Speaker. We are concerned, as my hon. Friend has recognised, with a statutory provision that can attract a penalty for non-compliance. That is the primary issue. The only issue before me is whether the provision has application to the firm in question.

GLASGOW SHERIFF COURT

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Lord Advocate when he next intends to visit Glasgow Sheriff Court.

The Lord Advocate: I have no immediate plans to visit Glasgow Sheriff Court.

Mr. Taylor: Is not the Lord Advocate very concerned at the unpaid fines in sheriff courts, as reported yesterday, which now amount to almost £1 million? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman feel that this problem might bring the whole court system into disrepute?

The Lord Advocate: Although I am concerned, that matter does not come within my ministerial province. The hon. Gentleman would be wise to table a specific question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. He has mentioned the problems of Glasgow Sheriff Court. As he is interested in the matter, I point out to him that two additional sheriff and jury courts came into operation last week.

Mr. Reid: Is the Lord Advocate aware of the considerable anger among Scottish prison officers at their low pay and the proposal to go slow on escort duty, with a view to clagging up, in particular, Glasgow Sheriff Court? What consideration has he given to the judicial implications of that action?

The Lord Advocate: That matter is not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said.

RENTAL PURCHASE AGREEMENTS

Mr. Buchanan: 35. Mr. Buchanan asked the Lord Advocate if he will refer to the Scottish Law Commission the law relating to the protection of the consumer against oppressive rental purchase agreements, in the light of the evidence sent to him by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn.

The Lord Advocate: On receipt of the information supplied to me by my hon. Friend I instructed inquiries to be made into these allegations. I have now received a full report from the procurator fiscal. After careful consideration of the report I have reached the view that criminal proceedings are not justified, as no offence appears to have been committed. I am considering what other action may appropriately be taken to deal with the situation to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.

Mr. Buchanan: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for the care that he has taken in this inquiry, but will he recognise that the operation of rental purchase agreements in substandard property by Norman Properties is exploiting the more unfortunate and vulnerable sections of our community? Will he take steps to tighten the law so that this type of property owner will be prosecuted as ruthlessly as he persecutes the unfortunate people who get into his clutches?

The Lord Advocate: My hon. Friend has made some abrasive comments about this practice. He is condemning a feature of private enterprise. It is an important matter, on which I should make some pronouncement that may be of assistance to members of the public. Before they complete a contract for the purchase of property, members of the public will always be wise to take legal advice. If they do not take that advice, they should be on their guard against dealing with firms that sell houses on what amount to short-term hire-purchase contracts that are intrinsically unfavourable to the purchaser and carry severe penalty clauses in the event of instalments falling into arrears.

HONOURABLE MEMBERS' SPEECHES (MR. SPEAKER'S STATEMENT)

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State for Employment to make his statement, I have a brief statement to make to the House.
I am deeply grateful to those hon. Members who last night co-operated by making brief speeches, thus enabling others to speak in the debate. I am also grateful to the spokesman for the official Opposition for the brief time that he took on the Front Bench.
The House knows that I keep a record of the number of times that hon. Members speak and of the length of their speeches. I have decided not to keep a record of speeches that take less than eight minutes.

EMPLOYMENT (SPECIAL MEASURES)

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
I told the House on 30th January of our intention to extend the temporary employment subsidy, the small firms employment subsidy and the job release scheme in broadly similar form for a further year from 1st April next.
We have decided to extend the scope of the small firms employment subsidy by making it available from 1st July to manufacturing firms with fewer than 200 employees in all the assisted areas and in the inner city partnership areas outside them, including London docklands and inner Birmingham. On this new basis the scheme is expected to cover some 70,000 new jobs in the period up to the end of March 1979. We have notified the EEC Commission of this extension.
From 1st April the job release scheme will be extended to cover the whole country. And from 1st July the allowance for a married person with a dependent husband or wife will he increased to £35, with the present rate of £26·50 continuing for a single person and for a married person whose spouse has an income of more than £8·50 a week


after tax. On this basis, the scheme should provide an extra 21,000 jobs for the registered unemployed in the period to the end of March 1979.
I turn now to TES. After intensive discussions we have reached agreement with the EEC Commission on limited modifications to this subsidy to make it compatible with the treaty. In future any applicants seeking the subsidy beyond six months will be required to submit a plan before the end of the first six months of subsidy showing how they aim to make the supported jobs viable when the subsidy ends. And we shall be introducing a short-time working scheme for the textiles, clothing and footwear industries which will extend to all firms which are limited in the TES support they can in future receive and to those firms which have exhausted TES support. These alternative arrangements will afford equivalent support to employment in those industries, and TES will not be modified until we can introduce the arrangements.
The short-time arrangements can be introduced before the end of May provided that the Employment Subsidies Bill is enacted in good time. So, from a date in May to be announced, new applicants for TES in the textiles, clothing and foot wear sectors will be limited to not more than 70 per cent. of the total labour force in any establishment for the first six months of subsidy and to not more than 50 per cent. for the second six months. In the case of applications received between 1st April and the May date, the limitation to 70 per cent. will be applied after the first three months of subsidy and to 50 per cent. after six months from first receiving the subsidy. Similar limitations will be applied to the supplement scheme in these sectors and from 1st October to applications for the supplement from any sector. There will be no commitment to provide the supplement to anyone entering the main scheme from 1st April.
We shall introduce new arrangements to support short-time working in the textiles, clothing and footwear industries. Where there would be redundancies which are not covered by the subsidy as modified, workers who in consequence are put on short time will receive 75 per cent. of their gross pay for each day's work lost and employers will be fully compensated

from the Exchequer for the costs involved. These arrangements will ensure that there need be no increase in unemployment in the industries concerned through the loss of TES support.
In addition, we have decided that firms in the textiles, clothing and footwear industries which have exhausted TES in the past or will do so in the period to 31st March 1979, should be eligible for a further six months' support for short-time working where redundancies would otherwise occur. We estimate that a further 40,000 workers will benefit for a period of six months each under this further proposal.
The Commission has asked that expenditure commitments on applications received in 1978–79 from the textiles, clothing and footwear sectors for the main TES scheme should not exceed £55 million and that expenditure commitments on such applications from other sectors and on the supplement scheme should not exceed £80 million. We expect that the modifications to the subsidy together with an expected decline in expenditure on the scheme this year in any event, will have this result.
The TES will continue unchanged in Northern Ireland, save where an applicant from the textiles, clothing or footwear industries is directly in competition with an establishment in the Irish Republic. In any such case the limits on the proportion of the labour force to be supported and the requirements of a plan to make the supported jobs viable will apply, unless the competitor is in receipt of an equivalent employment subsidy.
These measures are additional to the new youth opportunities programme and the special temporary employment programme, which come into operation on 1st April, and to the special training measures for 1978–79 for which we have now decided to provide £41 million to support some 40,000 trainees. The current special employment measures are now providing in total some 320,000 jobs or training places and this figure should be raised by these new measures to over 400,000 by March 1979. These measures are likely to add about £300 million to United Kingdom expenditure programmes on employment over the next two years. Rather more than half will fall in 1978–79. The net cost will be much less than this because of savings in unemployment


benefit and the flowback of tax and national insurance contributions.
Only higher and sustained economic activity here and in the world economy will solve general unemployment, and this is the aim of the Government's policies. But we cannot leave people unemployed as long as there are sensible ways to offer them employment or training opportunities, often at little additional cost to maintaining them in unemployment. This is the justification of the steps that I have announced this afternoon.

Mr. Prior: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement brings out with clarity the seriousness of the unemployment situation? Were it not for the measures that he has announced today and on other occasions, the total of unemployment would now be approaching the 2 million mark. Is he aware that his announcement today shows that the Government are now supporting up to 400,000 people? How much is the gross and net cost of all the schemes that are either in operation or planned to come into operation for those 400,000 people?
How similar to the German system are the plans that he has announced today for the temporary employment subsidy mark II? What plans have the Government to deal with the structural problems that exist in the textiles, footwear and clothing industries, bearing in mind that we must seek a long-term solution and not rely on temporary solutions which do not solve the problems in the long run?
Is the Secretary of State aware that we support the extension of the job release scheme but that we should like confirmation from him that this is for people at work and not for those coming off the unemployment register?
Is he aware that we have to look to the small firms for future employment prospects? Why, therefore, did he not consider extending the small firms employment subsidy to all areas instead of restricting it to those areas which he mentioned? Is he aware that changes to the Employment Protection Act would help small firms more than anything else? Is he aware that the help that he is giving is rather like putting one foot on the accelerator and keeping the other on the brake?
Will the Secretary of State comment on the fact that if one is to help small

firms, as the Prime Minister appeared to suggest last night, it must be by changes to the Employment Protection Act and by a reduction in Government interference and the amount of form filling? Does he agree that we must look in that direction over the next few years?

Mr. Booth: I welcome the support of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) for the job release scheme. I confirm that it will apply only in cases where the person taking the release—who must be in employment—is replaced by someone who is on the unemployment register. I should have welcomed support for some of the other measures. We are making an extension to the temporary employment subsidy in the development and inner city partnership areas only, because unemployment is higher there. We believe that there is a role for a measure which recognises the regional differences in unemployment.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Employment Protection Act. I have never thought that the solution was to create second-class workers in small firms. The gross and net costs of the schemes that are now running vary. In some cases the temporary employment subsidy may cost nothing at all. In other cases the net cost may be as high as 40 per cent. of the overall cost. The average figure is about 25 per cent.
There are essential differences between the scheme for short-time support coupled with TES that we are operating in West Germany. Our scheme gives a wider scale of support. I believe that the TES scheme, particularly in the textiles, footwear and clothing industries, combines effectively with the industrial strategy support which is given by the Department of Industry. It will enable firms to reorganise in order to sustain working capacity and production in a way that would be impossible without the scheme.

Mr. Noble: Will my right hon. Friend ignore the mealy-mouthed attitude of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and accept the congratulations of his hon. Friends on his successful negotiations with the EEC? Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who are involved in the textiles, footwear and clothing industries are particularly pleased to note that firms which have exhausted TES can have a second bite at the cherry in order to maintain employment? May


we have some idea of the help which firms can expect if they have to produce a reorganisation plan after six months when applying for TES?

Mr. Booth: I acknowledge the representations that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) has made about the need for short-time assistance to be coupled with TES. It is largely as a result of these representations that we have done the work in the Department to develop this arrangement.
I shall certainly examine how effectively my Department and the Manpower Services Committee might be able to assist firms in developing the restructure plans which they will have to submit. Much of the useful experience that we have from firms which have restructured can be passed on to other firms.

Mr. Peter Walker: May I press the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) about limiting the area in which small firms will benefit? Is the Secretary of State aware that unemployment in the West Midlands area has risen faster than anywhere else in the country and that the partnership area represents a minute proportion of that region? Is he aware that even after these measures and four years of Labour Government, when school leavers leave this year we are still likely to have more than 1½ million unemployed?

Mr. Booth: This year's school leavers will have the benefit of the youth opportunities programme, which is the most ambitious programme of its kind in any democratic country. It will give them a chance in a recession which they would not otherwise have. Every school leaver will have the chance of a job, further education or of training and obtaining work experience.
The right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) criticised the limitation of the extension of TES. Many of our measures, including the job release scheme, are now running nation-wide. If we were not to limit certain schemes to selected areas there would be no degree of regional policy, and that would ignore the different problems in the regions.

Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the statement by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior)

that but for the Government's measures the unemployment level would have been 400,000 higher? Is that not in itself a justification of the measures that my right hon. Friend and the Government have taken? I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends, particularly those from Merseyside, welcome the further measures that have been outlined this afternoon. But is it not clear that to deal with the most serious overall problem of unemployment there will have to be a boost in the economy? Does he agree that there will have to be further public expenditure to assist construction, education and health? Will he impress that fact upon my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and explain to him that, while my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is doing a good job, we expect further help from the Chancellor in the Budget?

Mr. Booth: I certainly accept the contention by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that actions by the Chancellor to boost the economy are essential if we are to reduce unemployment to the level we want to reach. I accept that an important public expenditure element is directly related to the employment of people in this country.
I was very pleased to note when I visited Merseyside that great use had been made in that area of the small firms employment subsidy. A quarter of the places which have been taken up in the special development areas have been taken up in Merseyside, and it is appreciated in that area, if nowhere else, that the North-West has benefited from the main scheme of TES to the extent of 108,000 jobs, and from the supplementary scheme to the extent of 18,000 jobs. I believe, therefore, that hon. Members who represent that area are well fitted to judge on the desirability of the measures I have announced.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Since I obviously want to call as many hon. Members as possible it would be a great help if they could put short sharp questions.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while we await implementation of the election promises of "Back to Work with Labour", we welcome his efforts and believe that temporary solutions are a great deal better


than no solutions? The right hon. Gentleman said in his statement that people could not be left unemployed as long as there are sensible ways of offering them employment. Will he answer the question I put to him in a recent debate concerning my constituency where unemployment is consistently the highest in the country? Will he continue the job creation scheme after 1st April?

Mr. Booth: The special temporary employment programme, which will run from 1st April, will continue the job creation scheme for those outwith the youth opportunities programme. It is for those over 18, and I have arranged with the Manpower Services Commission that priority will be given to those in the 19-to-25 age band who have been six months unemployed, and those over 25 who have been unemployed for more than a year. Therefore, job creation will be continued for that age group, and the youth opportunities programme will run, too.

Mr. Jay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he deserves great credit for the fact that with these employment schemes we are now hardly any worse off than we would have been if there had been no interference from Brussels?

Mr. Booth: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comment. I can confirm only that that was the object of the exercise.

Mr. Penhaligon: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that my colleagues spent some considerable time encouraging the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—to extend the small firms employment subsidy, and that we are delighted that this has now been announced? Will he explain why he continues to ignore the claims of agriculture? What is the difference from a value-added point of view or in terms of balance of payments or employment between manufacturing components for a motor car and growing cabbages?

Mr. Booth: The main difference between agriculture and small firms engaged in manufacturing is that agriculture is organised in units which generally employ a smaller number of people. The object of the small firms subsidy is to encourage firms to grow from below 200 employees to above that figure.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these measures will be especially welcomed in areas which rely upon the textiles, clothing and footwear industries, particularly in those areas to which the job release scheme did not previously apply? Is he, however, aware that where the job release scheme did apply, not enough people took advantage of it? Will he make sure that the new arrangements, which are so important to areas such as Leicester, will be publicised so that people who can take advantage of them are encouraged to do so?

Mr. Booth: I readily accept that not enough people have taken advantage of the existing scheme. The increase in the payment to £35 a week tax free will encourage many more people to do so, and anything that I and my colleagues can do through publicity to increase the numbers taking advantage of the scheme we shall gladly do.

Mr. McCusker: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the gratitude of industries in Northern Ireland which will benefit by his announcement, particularly as the scheme is to continue in its existing form there? Will he assure those companies which will be adjudged to be in competition with factories in the Republic of Ireland that when he is assessing whether subsidy in the Republic is equivalent to that in the North he will take account of all the subsidies available to some firms in the Republic?

Mr. Booth: The assessment will be a tripartite process involving the United Kingdom Government, the Government of the Irish Republic and the EEC Commission. We shall seek to ensure that all subsidies paid in Southern Ireland are taken into account for this purpose.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these proposals will be welcomed in Wales, where unemployment is considered to be a major problem? However, since structural unemployment is likely to remain with us for many years, what consideration has been given to a longer-term employment subsidy? Further, what consideration has been given on the job release scheme to changing the age of retirement to 64 rather than to 65?

Mr. Booth: We did carefully consider whether it would be more effective to


reduce the entry age into JRS rather than to increase the payment. We took the view that there were so many additional people in the 64-to-65 age range male and the 59-to-60 age range female yet to come forward that it would be more effective to increase the payment. On my hon. Friend's other point about continuing the employment subsidy, we shall have to work out over the next 12 months to what extent we can co-ordinate existing subsidy schemes, and we shall have to decide whether there is a continuing role for employment subsidy in areas of longer-term structural problems.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the South-West many areas are dependent for much of their employment on the textiles and footwear industries, which are declining, and have a higher rate of unemployment than the assisted areas? Is it not illogical to produce measures such as those announced today to sustain employment in those declining industries while denying assisted area status to those areas, which would attract growth industries to replace those in decline?

Mr. Booth: I am not concerned today with the determination of assisted area boundaries. I am, however, very much concerned with the support to be given to the clothing, textiles and footwear industries in the South-West, which I think will very much welcome the extended support they will get as a result of these measures.

Mr. Madden: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that none of the changes he has announced today concerning TES would have been necessary had it not been for the intervention and interference of the Common Market in the Government's policies? What is the total number of jobs that my right hon. Friend expects to be created or safeguarded as a result of all the measures he has announced this afternoon? Does he accept that he has opened the door wide to limited retirement, which will offer prospects to many older workers of welcome leisure time and to younger workers of badly needed jobs?

Mr. Booth: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's latter point. As to the additional jobs, I have indicated that this will bring the total support up to 400,000.

I take that as a measure of the requirement rather than as a condemnation of the measures, as was suggested by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft. The small firms employment subsidy and the job release scheme will, we estimate, add at least 90,000 to the numbers in employment over the next year.

Mr. Scott: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the 400,000 figure that he has just repeated includes young people who will receive nothing more than the fortnight's induction scheme? If that is so, what percentage of the total will they represent?

Mr. Booth: The numbers covered by the youth opportunities programme is equivalent to about 220,000 people being employed for a year, taking into account the fact that different people will be within the scheme for different lengths of time. The average time spent in the scheme will be about six months.

Mr. Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend please note that at least his announcement will bring joy to the many textile workers in my constituency and that they will be very interested in the weasel words from the Opposition Benches when Conservative Members heard the announcement? Will the Commission be vetting any of the applications for the new scheme?

Mr. Booth: I shall be informing the Commission quarterly of the number of applications we receive. It will look in particular at some of the larger applications, but it will not have the right to determine those applications.

Mr. Higgins: Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that the real danger to employment is the growth of protectionism and the distortion of world trade? Is he convinced that none of the measures is contrary to GATT? Has he considered whether countervailing duties might be imposed by some of those to whom we export textile products?

Mr. Booth: I am satisfied that none of these measures is contrary to GATT. I do not regard them as protection measures in the narrow sense. They are protection measures in the sense that they protect people's jobs. That is what we are in the business of doing.

Mr. John Evans: Does my right hon. Friend accept that all of us on the Labour Benches welcome the fact that a modicum of common sense has broken out in the competition department of the EEC? We are told that two countries had objected to TES. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend tell us whether this scheme is subject to veto by the Council of Employment Ministers? As there are 6½ million unemployed in the Community and another 9 million young people will be coming on to the employment register by 1985, is it not time that the Employment Ministers, together with the Commissioner responsible for social affairs, got together to start boosting the economy of the EEC countries?

Mr. Booth: The scheme is not subject to the veto of the Council of Employment Ministers. I agree that it is time that Labour Ministers of the EEC got together to decide how far it is appropriate to use the EEC as a means of supporting employment measures throughout the Community rather than pursuing a competition policy in a way that threatens jobs.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is not correct to say, as his hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) did, that no alteration in the temporary employment subsidy would have been necessary but for the EEC? I welcome his ironing out of the anomalies of the TES, in conjunction with the EEC, which has proved very sympathetic. I refer particularly to the anomaly of the unfairness to firms whose entitlement had run out before the supplementary scheme came in. I hope that when I bring some trade unionists to meet the Under-Secretary later in the afternoon the Secretary of State's hon. Friend will find a way under the scheme to save jobs that are otherwise in jeopardy.

Mr. Booth: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) is absolutely right in suggesting that certain of the limitations would not have been put on TES but for the Community. I think particularly of the limitation of 70 per cent. of the workers in an individual establishment. But the parameters within which I negotiated were determined by those in the House who voted for the EEC Act and the people in the country

who voted for retaining membership. To that extent I must accept that it is a proper function of a Minister to carry out such negotiations. I very much agree with the hon. Lady that one aspect of the scheme that I have been able to announce will be particularly welcome to firms that have run out of TES entitlement.

Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there would be no need for the extension of corporatism announced this afternoon had we not been dragged into the Common Market by the Conservatives when they were in Government, aided and abetted by some who occupy our Front Bench, and if the present Government had not slashed public expenditure as they have, aided and abetted by the Opposition? But will my right hon. Friend accept also that I admire his timing on the matter, because the announcement comes a few days after the Leader of the Opposition made that weird speech at Bradford to the Conservative trade unionists? It is no wonder the right hon. Lady has not turned up today to listen to what my right hon. Friend said. Nobody is more embarrassed than the scarlet-faced right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior).

Mr. Booth: I regret that I cannot claim credit for the timing of the statement or the embarrassment of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft. The right hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition must answer for their own policies. I only thank the Lord that I do not have to answer for them.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall call the hon. Members who have been rising.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: What are the Government prepared to do for new investment and new jobs, which are the only real basis upon which future prosperity and long-term security of jobs can be achieved?

Mr. Booth: The investment grant scheme and particularly the special accelerated investment project measures are clearly backing some new investment. Couple that with the extension of the small firms employment subsidy, and it will be seen that the Government are also backing the expansion of jobs.

Mr. Raison: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the point that instead of the large-scale subsidisation of nonviable jobs, which can lead only to worse productivity, it would be much better to spend the same money either on genuine public sector programmes—perhaps particularly capital programmes—or the reduction of taxation and the carrying out of other incentives to genuine growth?

Mr. Booth: Mr. Booth I see the TES scheme as a way of maintaining viable jobs. That is why I welcomed the opportunity to include within the scheme now the structuring requirements and plans to be submitted wherever TES must be paid beyond six months. It is not a practical option to say that we shall withdraw support from manufacturing industry in order to extend public services. We need to ensure that manufacturing industry survives and grows in order that we can continue to expand our public services.

Mr. Stephen Ross: The Secretary of State's announcement on the small firms employment subsidy will be heard with profound disappointment in my constituency, a county with the highest unemployment of any outside the assisted areas. It is also an area that must put up with the extra cost of transferring all its products across the sea. If the subsidy cannot be extended to the whole country—a measure that I would support—is there not some way in which areas with consistently high unemployment, say, over 8½ per cent. or 9 per cent., or specially assisted by the Development Commission, can qualify for it?

Mr. Booth: I accept that there may be disappointment in the Isle of Wight that it is not covered by the small firms employment subsidy, but I hope that people there will welcome the extension to the island of the job release scheme and the extension of TES entitlement. We shall continue to study ways of helping over certain problems of unemployment in the Isle of Wight.

Mr. Haselhurst: How far does the right hon. Gentleman estimate that the number of jobs he has created or protected through the measures he announced this afternoon will keep pace with the number of jobs he estimates will be lost in the course of the next year through demanning and redundancies?

Mr. Booth: We believe that it is possible to offset demanning and redundancies by industry support measures. Over the last full year for which we have figures there has been a net increase in numbers of people employed in this country. But I do not hide from the House that we have a major concern for the vastly increasing number of people coming on to the labour market, particularly young people and particularly women seeking work for the first time. We shall need to produce about 170,000 more jobs each year to keep pace with that.

Mr. Welsh: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how, in practice, these measures will help workers facing redundancy in the Garscadden area of Glasgow? Is he aware of the threat of redundancy at the Goodyear factory in an area which already has an unemployment rate of 30 per cent.? Is he further aware that the Goodyear factory is flanked by two others which have recently closed down? How can these measures help repair the damage done by past Government policy?

Mr. Booth: Measures introduced now are not intended to deal with past policies. They are intended to deal with any possibility of forthcoming redundancies. They can help by extending the scope of the temporary employment subsidy in industries which are operating short-time working. The workers organised in those areas will be involved in these TES measures and in the restructuring because we shall require joint signatures of employers and union representatives in connection with the TES applications and the restructuring proposals.

Mr. Ridley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these are spoof jobs provided by spoof Ministers in a spoof Government? Does he realise that they have to be paid for by real money earned by real people who would do very much better if the Government provided real jobs?

Mr. Booth: I am very much aware that taxpayers' money and the money of those who contribute to national insurance funds would be spent on supporting those who are unemployed, or about to become unemployed, and who, as a result of these measures, will be brought into


jobs or maintained in them. There is nothing spoof about that. The problem and the concern is real.

RHODESIA

Mr. Cormack: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the internal settlement in Rhodesia in the light of the decision of the Security Council to reject it.
I asked last week that the House be given an opportunity to discuss this matter. I would submit that the decision taken in the Security Council is a new factor which makes this subject all the more urgent. I believe that this is something which the House should discuss, because the Government have not yet had an opportunity fully to explain their position to the House and the House has not had an opportunity to debate the matter.
The Government, in the person of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, have said time and again that this issue remains a British responsibility. Last night's decision in New York makes it vital that we should discuss the matter here. Peace in Africa hangs on a thread. I submit that in debating this subject we would not be displacing any other urgent business. There is no business before the House in which lives are put at stake in the way in which they will be put at stake if the internal settlement in Rhodesia is rejected and civil war breaks out. The peace of a great continent depends on this—perhaps the peace of the world. I would urgently ask you, Mr. Speaker, to grant this request.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) gave me notice this morning that he would seek to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the internal settlement in Rhodesia in the light of the decision of the Security Council to reject it.

I have listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the hon. Gentleman. I am unable to accede to his request. May I say that I understand his desire for a debate. However, the emergency Standing Order debate is the one with which I am concerned, and I cannot agree to his request.

BILL PRESENTED

THEATRES TRUST (SCOTLAND)

Mr. David Crouch, supported by Mrs. Margaret Bain, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Norman Buchan, Mr. Robin F. Cook. Mr. Jim Craigen, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn, Mr. Alexander Fletcher, Mr. Hugh McCartney, Mr. Malcolm Rifkind, and Mr. James White, presented a Bill to extend the Theatres Trust Act 1976 to Scotland; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21st April and to be printed. [Bill 88.]

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (DEPOSITS AND NOMINATIONS)

4.14 p.m.

Mr. Granville Janner: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to change the Parliamentary Elections Rules in respect of the validity of nominations.
This is a Bill to change the parliamentary rules in respect of the validity of nominations, in particular by raising the deposit of £150 payable by candidates, which sum was fixed in 1918, to the sum of £500, with the alternative—to provide for those cases where candidates have true and considerable public support but little money—of their finding a percentage, which I would suggest should be 5 per cent., of the people on the electoral role who are prepared to sign the nomination papers.
At present, anyone who is prepared to put up the sum of £150 does not merely acquire the right to stand for Parliament; he acquires subsidiary rights provided at the expense of the public which lend themselves to abuses of the democratic prosesses of the worst kind. As a start, anyone who wishes to stand and who can find £150 will acquire the right to


one free mailing to every elector in his constituency at an average cost to the public of approximately £4,500. Secondly, if enough people put up for the same cause or the same party in sufficient constituencies, at a cost of £150 each, they acquire not only free radio time but the least expensive television time in the history of broadcasting.
The troubles to which this situation can lead have become plain. In the recent by-election at which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever) was elected there were 10 candidates, of whom eight lost their deposits. My hon. Friend has told me, as I understand he would tell the House were the opportunity to arise, that there was enormous confusion, with tremendously long ballot papers, people putting up posters all over the constituency for parties which scarcely existed, candidates indulging in self-publicity of the worst kind and, of course, the usual highly extremist representation of those who can put up candidates at no cost to themselves but who are able, in the process, to use the mail free to propagate ideas odious to the vast majority of the electorate. In the event these people lost their deposits.
In the by-election at Ilford, North there were eight candidates, of whom six lost their deposits. One was a Gentleman called Commander Boaks, who has stood in 13 parliamentary elections and whose views are well represented by some Tory Members who managed somehow, to get their party to adopt them as candidates, thereby saving their deposits. Commander Boaks achieved the zenith of his popularity in the Ilford, North by-election when he polled 38 votes, having for £150, on that as on other occasions, achieved the right to free franking facilities.
Commander Boaks is perfectly entitled to put forward his views. Any person in this democracy is free to stand for Parliament and ought not to be prevented on the ground that he has not the money. On the other hand, there must be a reasonable limit if elections are not to be turned into a three-ring circus. Following investigations made by him, the distinguished researcher, Mr. Fred Craig of Parliamentary Research Services, estimates that while there were just over 2,000 candidates in the 1974 election, if the deposit remains where it is there will

be over 3,000 at the next election and the number is likely to go on increasing.
The situation would be ludicrous in any event. The seriousness of it becomes obvious when, for example, the National Front announces that it intends to put up 300 candidates in constituencies where it has not the slightest chance of saving its deposit. The National Front has not, as yet, saved a deposit anywhere in the country.
As a result of putting up these candidates, it will acquire the right to free television time, and I am told that to buy 10 minutes of television time on one channel costs £98,000. Instead of time on one channel the National Front would acquire three-channel publicity. It would acquire the right to free radio time, to put up candidates without other people in the campaign being able to point out, as they can in this House, that many of the leaders of that party are people with criminal records involving violence—people who would destroy our domestic process. Yet the National Front can have the opportunity, for £150 per constituency, of making use of the democratic process for that purpose.
I am happy to say that the Bill has received the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. There are individual exceptions, whom I respect. The broad area of agreement is a wide one—a spectacularly wide one now that the Liberals have joined the ranks of the supporters. Although some hon. Members have preferred not to support the Bill because they thought the Speaker's Conference would be the appropriate place for this sort of reform to be carried through. I ask the House not to accept that view, because it would be putting off the inevitable until almost parliamentary Doomsday.
Since 1918, there has been a series of parliamentary Speaker's Conferences, not one of which has succeeded in reaching agreement or movement on this subject. That is why for 60 years the deposit has remained the same. When the Front Bench and the Speaker's Conference remain unable to reach agreement of result, perhaps then is the opportunity for the Back Benchers to emerge and to try to get a little progress in an area in which, for the sake of parliamentary democracy, it is essential.
I ask that the Bill be allowed to go forward now and before another General Election comes, because the matter has an urgency. It is in those circumstances that I seek leave to present the Bill.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Mr. Robert Rhodes James (Cambridge) rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I take it that the hon. Gentleman wishes to oppose the Bill.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I rise to oppose the motion. I do so first and foremost on an issue of principle—that principle being that any citizen of this nation, save for certain known categories, has the right to stand for membership of this House. As everyone knows, the chances of an independent candidate being elected to this House are very small indeed.
The Bill basically proposes to make the candidatures of independent candidates more expensive and even more difficult than they are at present. It is another step in the direction of making membership of this House open only to the candidates of established parties or to those who can afford the heavy increased cost of candidature which the hon. Gentleman proposes.
I cannot believe that such a step is in the interests of this House and in the interests of this democracy. I remind Labour Members that at the beginning of their party was the candidature—which was described as futile and feckless—of Mr. Keir Hardie in West Ham in 1892. In case my hon. Friends are not exactly swept aside by that argument, I remind them of the early career of Mr. Benjamin Disraeli.
The hon. Gentleman starts from the proposition that the £150 deposit, which was imposed by the Lloyd George Government, was in itself a desirable novelty in the constitution. He also makes the argument or starts from the assumption that £150 today remains a derisory sum. I do not agree with either of those propositions.
The argument concerning the £4,500 expenditure on postage is a bogus one because, as hon. Members all know, it is only through the dedicated work of volunteers that it is possible to distribute the election literature which hon. Members

of established parties have. If an independent candidate has sufficient volunteers and supporters who are prepared to do that work for him, why should he not then stand?
The hon. Gentleman spoke rather derisively about Speakers' Conferences. I would accept that the matter has not progressed very much over the last 40 or 50 years, but to seek a change of this magnitude by means of a Ten-Minute Bill seems to me to avoid the fundamental problems of the constitution in this country, the method of election to this House and the future of our constitution. It seems to me to be a highly imperfect manner of endeavouring to achieve reform.
This proposal, or any other proposal designed to increase the deposit considerably in order to make the position of independent candidates more difficult and more expensive, will not hurt the National Front. It will hurt primarily individuals and small groups. The hon. Gentleman may consider them to be not nearly as important as the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, or the independent parties, but I should like to give an example of the indirect importance of such candidates.
At the election which resulted in my coming to this House there was an independent candidate who stood for the self-employed. It so happened that his argument did not persuade a considerable number of the electors of Cambridge to elect him, but through his argument and his campaign he brought to the attention of all the candidates and to the electorate of Cambridge the deep importance of the self-employed and of small businesses. He did not win but he contributed to the debate in a very useful way, and his candidature was far from nugatory. He lost his deposit—he lost his own money—but his contribution, as a democrat and as an individual, to the debate during that election campaign, was very considerable. I deeply respected it and I was grateful for it.
I oppose the motion on two grounds. The first is a fundamental one of principle. I do not believe that the established, organised, rich parties have any right at all at this stage, in a dying Parliament, to try to put forward legislation which militates against small parties and individuals. Secondly, if such a


measure is to be proposed, it should not be contained in a Ten-Minute Bill of this nature.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring

in Bills and Nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 60.

Division No. 149]
AYES
[4.26 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Graham, Ted
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Anderson, Donald
Grant, George (Morpeth)
O'Halloran, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Gray, Hamish
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Bates, Alf
Grocott, Bruce
Page, John (Harrow West)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Page, Richard (Workington)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Hannam, John
Palmer, Arthur


Biggs-Davison, John
Harper, Joseph
Pardoe, John


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Park, George


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Parry, Robert


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Haselhurst, Alan
Pavitt, Laurie


Brooke, Peter
Hayhoe, Barney
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hordern, Peter
Richardson, Miss Jo


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Carmichael, Neil
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rose, Paul B.


Cartwright, John
Hurd, Douglas
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Churchill, W. S.
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Clemitson, Ivor
Janner, Greville
Sainsbury, Tim


Cockcroft, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Cocks. Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Sandelson, Neville


Cohen, Stanley
Jessel, Toby
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Coleman, Donald
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Sims, Roger


Cowans, Harry
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jopling, Michael
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Crouch, David
Kaufman, Gerald
Snape, Peter


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Kerr, Russell
Speed, Keith


Cryer, Bob
Kimball, Marcus
Stallard, A. W.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kinnock. Neil
Stanley, John


Dempsey, James
Knight, Mrs Jill
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Dormand, J. D.
Lamborn, Harry
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lawrence, Ivan
Stoddart, David


Dykes, Hugh
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Strang, Gavin


Edge, Geoff
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Tapsell, Peter


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Elliott, Sir William
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Wakeham, John


English, Michael
McCusker, H.
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Macfarlane, Nell
Ward, Michael


Evans, John (Newton)
MacGregor, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Faulds, Andrew
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Whitlock, William


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mates, Michael
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Fookes, Miss Janet
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Forrester, John
Mikardo, Ian
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Freud, Clement
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Woodall, Alec


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Molyneaux, James
Young, David (Bolton E)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Montgomery, Fergus



Goodhart, Philip
Moonman, Eric
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Mr. Ronald Atkins and


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Mr. John Sever.




NOES


Atkinson, Norman
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Litterick, Tom


Awdry, Daniel
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Loyden, Eddie


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Golding, John
MacCormick, Iain


Beith, A. J.
Goodhew, Victor
Madden, Max


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Canavan, Dennis
Hawkins, Paul
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cant, R. B.
Heffer, Eric S.
Neubert, Michael


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hooson, Emlyn
Parkinson, Cecil


Cope, John
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Penhaligon, David


Cormack, Patrick
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Reid, George


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Crawford, Douglas
Kilfedder, James
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Silvester, Fred


Drayson, Burnaby
Knox, David
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lambie, David
Spriggs, Leslie


Flannery, Martin
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald




Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Watt, Hamish
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thompson, George
Welsh, Andrew
Mr. Nicholas Scott and


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Robert Rhodes James


Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Winterton, Nicholas



Tomney, Frank
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Ronald Atkins, Mrs. Lynda Chalker, Mr. John Davies, Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Mr. John Pardoe, Mr. Edwin Wainwright, Mr. Peter Walker and Sir Harold Wilson.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (DEPOSITS AND NOMINATIONS)

Mr. Greville Janner accordingly presented a Bill to change the Parliamentary Elections Rules in respect of the validity of nominations; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5th May and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

Orders of the Day — TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.35 p.m.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Denzil Davies): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a short, technical Bill, which clarifies and amends the law on the investment and borrowing powers of trustee savings banks. The law governing the activities of trustee savings banks is contained mainly in two statutes—the Trustee Savings Banks Act 1969 and the Trustee Savings Banks Act 1976. The 1969 Act was a consolidation measure. The 1976 Act extended the powers of trustee savings banks so that, in line with the recommendations of the Page Report on National Savings, they would extend their range of services and develop as a third force in banking.
I should like to make it clear that this Bill marks no change in the Government's policy towards trustee savings banks. The need for this Bill arises, unfortunately, because doubts have arisen about the effects of the 1976 Act. The purpose of this Bill is to make the law clear beyond doubt.
I think that it would be most helpful to the House if I explained the effect of the three substantive clauses, and the need for them.
Clause 1 declares for the avoidance of doubt that trustee savings banks may invest their funds freely, except as restricted by statute. In practice, the statutory restrictions are tight. Moneys deposited in trustee savings banks' ordinary department have to be invested with the National Debt Commissioners in accordance with Section 12(1) of the 1969 Act and, under Section 13 and Schedule 3 of the 1976 Act, the Treasury controls the investment of other sums owed to depositors, that is money deposited in cheque accounts and the various investment account facilities. Depositors' balances with trustee savings banks currently total about £4·6 billion, about £1·7 billion being in ordinary department savings accounts, and about £2·9 billion being in the new departments.
But the main purpose of the clause is to put beyond doubt trustee savings banks' powers to lend long term on the security of a mortgage. It was thought that Section 9(1) of the 1976 Act, which gave trustee savings banks the power
to carry on the business of banking".
would allow trustee savings banks to do mortgage lending. But sufficient doubt has been expressed about this—because it appears that banks do not in practice lend money to customers secured on a mortgage for periods as long as, say, building societies to make it necessary to clarify the law.
It is necessary to do this now not because trustee savings banks in general are planning to commence long-term mortgage lending—indeed, they have no immediate plans for doing so—but because one trustee savings bank, the Birmingham Municipal Trustee Savings Bank, has done some mortgage lending. The Birmingham Municipal Trustee Savings Bank is the successor body to the old Birmingham Municipal Bank, which always did mortgage lending and became a trustee savings bank only on the understanding that as a trustee savings bank it would be able to continue with its policy of doing a limited amount of mortgage lending. At the time of its change to a trustee savings bank on 1st April 1976 advances secured by a mortgage totalled about £9 million. These mortgages have not yet been transferred from the Birmingham District Council to the Birmingham Municipal Trustee Savings Bank, although it is intended that they should be transferred as soon as trustee savings banks' powers to do mortgage lending are clarified by the Bill. Since 1st April 1976 the Birmingham Municipal Trustee Savings Bank has advanced some £2½ million in loans secured by mortgages. Because of the doubts about trustee savings banks' powers to do mortgage lending, the granting of these mortgage loans must be validated retrospectively.
I should like to make it clear that it is not the mortgages themselves that have to be validated. It is the actual granting of the loans. The trustees of the Birmingham Municipal Trustee Savings Bank might otherwise be held to have acted in breach of trust in advancing loans secured by mortgages when they may not have had the power to do so. But


the loans themselves are valid, and in the event of a default the security would be enforceable so that the loans would be recoverable. So we are merely concerned with a breach of trust on the part of the trustees and not with the validity of the actual mortgages granted.

Mr. William Wilson: Before my hon. Friend moves to Clause 2 will he explain Clause 1(3)? Does it mean that any loan on real security is validated'? It seems to me that there could be other grounds upon which a loan might be invalidated, such as improper valuations and wrong acts by the trustees. Does it necessarily have to be as full as the subsection makes it out to be?

Mr. Davies: My understanding is that this covers the actual validity of the granting of a loan. We are concerned here with the question of breach of trust. The valuation might not be correct. There may be other problems. But that does not go to the trust point, which is basic, in that if the valuation were not correct it would not necessarily follow that the loan was invalid and had to be validated. We are concerned simply with the question of breach of trust, which is validated. No doubt this point can be discussed again in Committee.
Clause 2 is required to correct an error made in the bringing into force of the 1976 Act. The 1976 Act is being brought into force gradually in a series of commencement orders. There have been four so far, and we are just about to make a fifth. The most significant of these commencement orders was the Trustee Savings Banks Act 1976 (Commencement No. 3) Order 1976 (Statutory Instrument 1976, No. 1829). This was made on 1st November 1976 and brought into force on 21st November the major part of the 1976 Act.
Critically to this Bill, this commencement order brought into force the repeal of Section 12(2) of the 1969 Act, which empowered trustee savings banks to operate special investment departments, and also the repeal of Section 13(1) of the 1969 Act, which provided, in conjunction with Section 13(4) of that Act, a definition of a "current account deposit". It was thought that these sections could be repealed because they were

made redundant by the bringing into force of Section 9 of the 1976 Act, under which it was thought that a trustee savings bank would be able to continue to provide time deposit facilities, and of Section 12(1) of the 1976 Act, under which moneys placed in current accounts no longer had to be invested with the National Debt Commissioners.
Unfortunately, these two repeals had side effects which were overlooked at the time that the Commencement Order (No. 3) was made. Clause 2 enables trustee savings banks to carry on their business in the way that they and the Government intended, and as far as is necessary has retrospective effect. Perhaps I should explain this in more detail.
The repeal of Section 12(2) of the 1969 Act made it arguable that all deposits with trustee savings banks were ordinary deposits as defined in that same Section 12. Under the 1969 Act, as amended by the 1976 Act, all ordinary deposits—apart from the deposits, not exceeding 10 per cent. of the whole, which can be retained as "till" money—have to be invested with the National Debt Commissioners, and the trustee savings banks should pay no more than 4 per cent. per annum interest upon them. Strictly speaking, therefore, trustee savings banks have been acting ultra vires since 21st November 1976 in offering investment accounts, term deposits and so on. Their operation of investment accounts has to be validated retrospectively.
This element of retrospection does not detract in any way from anybody's rights. Indeed, it works for the benefit of trustee savings banks' customers. Investment account holders, who have been receiving up to 10 per cent. per annum interest on their deposits, will not complain because they have been paid more than the 4 per cent. laid down as the maximum rate of interest payable on ordinary deposits. Nor are depositors likely to complain that TSBs have built up their own investment portfolios rather than investing all their money with the National Debt Commissioners, and have offered certain new facilities—for example, personal loans—to their customers.
It is possible to put trustee savings banks' current accounts on a sound legal footing without recourse to retrospection. This can be done by a simple declaration for the avoidance of doubt


in Clause 2(2). Section 12(1) of the 1976 Act provided for moneys deposited as ordinary deposits to be placed to the credit of a current account not to be required to be invested with the National Debt Commissioners. But some doubt has arisen about the effectiveness of this provision because the repeal of Section 13(1) of the 1969 Act has effectively removed the definition of current accounts, and also because Section 12(1) of the 1969 Act is drafted in terms of
Save as otherwise provided by this Act …
As I have said, the doubts are very slight, but it seems sensible to clarify the matter in the Bill.
I have tried to explain the two main subsections, subsections (1) and (2). Subsections (3) to (5) are consequential to the amendments of definitions in the 1969 and 1976 Acts. The intention is to remove all reference to savings account deposits and current account deposits so that only one class of deposit is defined in the legislation—that is, ordinary deposits. It is these deposits that are subject to the requirement that they shall be invested with the National Debt Commissioners.
Clause 3 provides that trustee savings banks have the power to borrow, subject to obtaining the approval of the Trustee Savings Banks Central Board.
The 1976 Act left it unclear whether trustee savings banks have the powers to borrow. Sections 50 and 51 of the 1969 Act gave the trustee savings banks a limited power to borrow, but when these sections were repealed by the 1976 Act no alternative provisions were substituted. Since it is obviously desirable that trustee savings banks should be able to borrow, it seemed sensible to put the matter again beyond doubt in the Bill and at the same time to introduce adequate safeguards for the exercise of the power.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The Minister has referred to the power of borrowing. Is he saying that Section 9(1) of the 1976 Act would not give the sort of approval that one needs without the doubt being raised?

Mr. Davies: There was a doubt. Rather than rely upon that section, it seemed sensible to clarify the matter in the Bill and to make it absolutely clear.
I draw the attention of the House to just three points on the borrowing clause. For the purposes of the clause, borrowing does not include taking deposits from customers in the ordinary course of a trustee savings bank's business. There is, therefore, no question of a trustee savings bank having to seek the Central Board's approval for its normal business. The clause provides that no borrowing by a trustee savings bank may be secured. This is consistent with normal banking practice. Depositors' interests, therefore, will not be subordinated to those of other creditors.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, trustee savings banks will not use their powers under this clause to change radically their mode of operations and become, perhaps, more like wholesale banks. The Treasury has agreed with the Trustee Savings Banks Central Board on how its powers of control over trustee savings banks' borrowing should be exercised. It will be made clear to the trustee savings banks that they will be allowed to do only a very limited amount of money market borrowing and that they would normally be expected to borrow on the money markets only to cover temporary liquidity crises brought on by sharp withdrawals of deposits.
I apologise to the House for the fact that my opening speech has been so detailed, but although very short, this is quite a complex Bill. I hope that a full explanation now of the purpose and effect of the three substantive clauses may help us to make better progress when it comes to considering the Bill in Committee. As I explained earlier, the Bill in no way represents a change in the Government's policy towards the trustee savings banks. It is a technical Bill, which I understand the TSB Central Board wants and is content with.
I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the Minister of State for the clear way in which he has explained what is a rather complicated and technical little Bill. On both sides of the House, I think, we are admirers of the trustee savings banks. I do not think that that is in dispute. We wish them well. However, this Bill is the third legislative measure


concerning the TSBs to come before the House in the past decade, the other two, as the Minister pointed out, being the Trustee Savings Banks Acts of 1969 and 1976.
In one sense, of course, this Bill is no more than a correction, in a variety of rather complicated respects, of poor draftsmanship by the Government in the wording of their 1976 Act. Although the Minister rather glossed over the point, it is clear from what he said that there were very serious drafting defects in the 1976 Act. We should note that and regret the fact.
Also, despite the technicality of the Bill and the narrowness, in one sense, with which it deals with these matters, it deals with a subject of great importance to the people of this country, and more particularly, perhaps, to those living in the North of England and Scotland, where TSBs play an even bigger role in life than they do in London and the South.
Overall, about one adult in every five or six in this country has an account with a TSB—about 8 million depositors in all. Their deposits amount to more than £4,500 million. Indeed, the TSBs—this is one of the reasons why we admire them so much—have been the only sector of the national savings movement to have achieved growth in savings in real terms in the post-war inflationary years. That is a considerable achievement. Therefore, any changes, however apparently small, in the law governing them demand our close attention.
The 1976 Act, as the Minister made clear, really revolutionised the whole structure and law under which the TSBs had in large measure operated since the Consolidation Act in 1863, and even before then. This revolution is rapidly becoming reflected in the practices of the TSBs, most notably in their introduction last August—after some delay caused by phase 2 of the Government's incomes policy—of their personal loans service, so that cheque books, overdrafts, foreign exchange, travellers' cheques, credit cards and, as the Minister made clear, perhaps mortgages in due course—although not immediately—are all now features of the new TSB service that is to be offered to the public.
Therefore, one can fairly say that the 1976 Act, which, of course, the Opposition supported, implemented many of the proposals of the Page Report on National Savings, published in 1973. It also had the effect of moving the operating procedures of the TSBs from the nineteenth century rather abruptly into the twentieth century, and they are in rapid process of turning themselves, under their Central Board, into what closely approximates to a joint stock bank, and one in terms of size of deposits not far behind Lloyds Bank and already larger than the smaller clearing banks.
The new legislation, of which this Bill is the latest example, has really turned the TSBs, now 19 in number, into the third force of banking. There is the private enterprise sector of banking—the joint stock banks—there is the public sector, consisting of the Giro and the National Savings Bank, which is still better known by the general public, I think, as the Post Office Savings Bank, and there is between them this mutual banking sector, consisting of the TSBs, which have their Central Board situated in Copthall Avenue, in the City of London, conveniently close both to the Bank of England and the Stock Exchange. This is, indeed, a far cry from the Dumfriesshire of 1810, where it all started.
Throughout the movement's cautious, honourable and almost wholly beneficial history, it has been what I think the authors of "1066 and All That" would undoubtedly have described as "a good thing." But we must take nothing for granted, and the Bill deserves close examination both in this Chamber and later in Committee.
If I understand Clause 1 aright—as the Minister went on with his explanations, it began to seem to me that the Bill was even more complicated than I had originally understood it to be—it clarifies the investment and mortgage lending powers of the TSBs. The Minister said that this clarification is necessary because the Birmingham Municipal Trustee Savings Bank, which, I mention in passing, is one of the many municipal monuments in Birmingham to the Chamberlain family, has always had power to lend on mortgage. But, as the Minister said, the remainder of the TSBs do not at present undertake mortgage lending. He went on


to say that they have no immediate plans to do so.
Of course, implicit in what the Minister said is a very important statement indeed, because although the TSBs may have no immediate plans to enter the house mortgage business, they have been given legal power to do so, and the Bill clarifies that still further. Therefore, presumably, when the Minister said that the TSBs had no immediate plans to do this he was implying that sooner or later they are likely to do so, and that, presumably, is why they have been given these legal powers. This of course will bring them into direct competition with the building societies. Before we allow that to start happening in practice we would want an assurance that the trustee savings banks really do possess the necessary skills to operate in this entirely new field.
Building society operations are highly technical and professional and many men have spent their entire working lives in that field. The trustee savings banks may think that they can move into that market, but it is one of considerable political controversy at all times. One has only to read the article written by Mr. Kenneth Fleet, in the business issue of The Sunday Times last Sunday, or the leading article in the Financial Times on Monday this week to see that the whole position of the building societies is at present under most careful scrutiny. We should like a little more clarification from the Minister on the point about trustee savings banks moving into this mortgage field.
Clause 2 is required to clarify a serious matter. The Minister made it clear that a very serious drafting error had been made, and retrospective legal action had to be taken to put it right. The deposits held in investment accounts by way of term deposits by a savings bank have been ultra vires since 21st September 1976. This is a very serious drafting error which the Government have had to admit to the House.
On Clause 3, I want to pursue the interesting point raised by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Wilson). He raised it about an earlier clause but it crops up at various stages throughout the Bill. Clause 3(1) says,
A trustee savings bank may borrow money from any source whatsoever with the approval of the Central Board.

We should like to know what the Government have in mind. Clause 2(1) and 2(1A) raise similar issues. On the face of it it looks as if the TSBs are being given unlimited borrowing powers and that they might be able to borrow, in certain economic circumstances, vast sums of money and use them to move into the mortgage field on a big scale.
The Minister of State told us that although the TSBs will have this great borrowing power—apparently uncircumscribed—they will be subjected to a Treasury directive on these matters, rather than legislation. Is that entirely satisfactory? Perhaps we could pursue that point in Committee. Would it be better for the proposed Treasury directive to be embodied in general terms in the Bill?
This Bill which we are being invited to use as a mechanism for putting right serious errors in and omissions from the 1976 Act inevitably raises the whole range of assurances that were given to the House when the 1976 Bill was before us. Arising from those assurances I shall now put certain additional questions to the Minister of State.
First of all, he will recall that the Finance Act last year—the first Finance Act of that year resulting from the eleventh Budget of this Government—raised the amount of interest that could be received free of tax by a depositor with a savings bank, whatever his marginal rate of tax, from £40 to £70. The Government have announced that they are withdrawing that tax allowance from 20th November 1979. Is that still the Government's intention? If so, will the necessary legislation be included in this year's Finance Bill—the thirteenth Budget—or will it be left to a Conservative Chancellor?
Secondly, the present Secretary of State for Trade when introducing the 1976 Bill in this House said on Second Reading:
The underlying securities at present show a deficiency of some £200 million because of a decline in market values over the long period during which the fund has operated. To give the authorities time to reduce and eliminate that deficiency the banks have agreed that this repayment should be phased over the expected seven years of the transition following the phasing out of the ordinary department".—[Official Report, 17th February 1976; Vol. 905, c. 1210.]


February 1976 was a few months before the IMF took charge of this Government's financial policies. British Government bonds were standing at depressed price levels, though they were not as depressed as they became as the year went on. Since then there has been a substantial recovery in the gilt-edged market. Has that recovery, as I would suppose, almost wiped out the £200-million deficit, and what are the Government's intentions on this matter? Is there now any need for this phased repayment over seven years? Has it been completed? If not, what is the time schedule involved for completion?
My third question involves the much larger sum of £1,500 million, excluding current account and other moneys, outstanding to the credit of the TSBs, which the Government have undertaken to repay to them. This amount is at present held in a portfolio by a body described by the Minister of State and other Government Ministers in a characteristically Freudian presentation as "the National Debt Commissioners". This body's correct title is the "Office of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt". It is not altogether surprising that Ministers who have borrowed more than £13,000 million overseas should have chosen to overlook that fact.
I understand that the Commissioners are planning to repay this £1,500 million to the TSBs in 15 half-yearly tranches over a seven-year period from 1979 to 1986, the first tranche is to be repaid on 21st November 1979. The reason for the long-drawn-out repayment procedure under the new arrangements set up in the 1976 Act has been delicately described as being "to avoid unsettling the market". In view of the recovery in the gilt-edged market since 1976 and the fairly rapid recent rise in the TSBs' reserves, is it intended to make the repayment of the £1,500 million more rapidly than originally envisaged? If not, why not?
My fourth question concerns the speech of the Secretary of State for Trade when he said in the House on 17th February 1976,
I have emphasised the importance of the banks building up their reserves at the same time as they develop their banking services for depositors."—[Official Report, 17th February 1976; Vol. 905, c. 1209.]

Am I right in saying that when the Secretary of State made that comment the reserves of the TSBs were only 2 per cent. of their deposits, and that a target was then set for them to reach a ratio of 7 per cent. of reserves to deposits by 1986? Is it also a fact that the reserves position of the TSBs has improved very markedly since 1976, and now stands at about 4.8 per cent.? If that is so, and if the 7 per cent. target figure is reached, as seems probable, well before 1986, will a higher target figure be set by the Government of the day, or is a 7 per cent. ratio deemed to be the ideal?
My fifth and final question to the Minister is: are the Government aware of the concern over the extent to which the TSBs, having been forced by trade union pressure to withdraw their service to the public on Saturdays, now find deposits being placed with the building societies, which open on Saturdays, rather than with them?
Was the last governmental word on this matter uttered by the Prime Minister yesterday at Question Time, when he advised everybody to bank with the Co-op? In that remark the right hon. Gentleman seemed to encapsulate the anxiety in the minds of many millions of depositors throughout the country ever since the Labour Party's national executive and its party conference committed a future Labour Government to nationalise all the banks.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: That is not correct.

Mr. Tapsell: I happen to have the document with me. It is Labour's "Programme for Britain 1976" and it is an official publication of the national executive of the Labour Party. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) is always telling us that what is handed down by the national executive must be regarded as the tablets of stone to be observed by the Labour Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we had all this over a period of about five hours on Friday.

Mr. Heffer: May I, for the record, correct what the hon. Gentleman said? He said that Labour wanted to nationalise all the banks. That is not the


proposition, and never has been. I suggest that he should do what I often advise many of his Conservative colleagues to do, and that is to read the original documents rather than the handouts from Tory Central Office.

Mr. Tapsell: I have read the Labour Party document from cover to cover, extremely carefully. If the hon. Gentleman will turn to page 20, he will see that it is clearly stated that
We"—
that is, the national executive—
called for action to ensure that institutional funds are steered towards investment in manufacturing. In 1971, however, Conference went much further than this and called for the nationalisation of the banks and insurance companies.
If that does not mean all the banks, I do not know what it does mean.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman must be honest about the matter. I must tell him that since then we have issued a report.

Mr. Tapsell: I am clearly saying—

Mr. Heffer: Mr. Heffer rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman does not give way, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) must accept the situation.

Mr. Tapsell: I am reading what is said on page 20 of that document, which is there for all to read.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member said that it was carried by conference, and that is not true.

Mr. Tapsell: I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 20 of "Labour's Programme for Britain 1976". If I can have the hon. Gentleman's absolute assurance that his party does not intend to nationalise the banks, I shall be grateful to hear it.

Mr. Heffer: Not all the banks, was the term used.

Mr. Tapsell: Broadly speaking, the Conservative Party very much welcomes the fact that the recent legislation on the trustee savings banks is moving in exactly the opposite direction to that advocated by the hon. Member for Walton and his hon. Friends. The Bill's proposals are entirely acceptable to us in that sense because they reflect the recommendations

of the committee under the chairmanship of Sir Harry Page, set up by the last Conservative Government. Those proposals have had the effect of increasing competition and of extending to millions of small savers a greatly extended and valuable range of banking services, particularly bearing in mind the fact that half the British people still do not carry a cheque book issued by any clearing bank. We favour the freeing of the trustee savings banks from the chains of Government by moving them gradually away from the skirts of the Commissioners.
We shall support the Bill, as we supported its predecessors. But many parents know that when they give their daughter a latchkey, they have to watch over her even more carefully than before. It is no secret, despite the eccentric views expressed today by the hon. Member for Walton, that many other Labour Members below the Gangway would like to put together the Giro, the National Savings Bank and the trustee savings banks to enlarge the public banking sector and to use their huge joint deposits—the savings of the people—as a form of creeping back-door nationalisation. The "Labour Programme for Britain 1976" makes no secret of that whatever. It makes no secret of the fact that there is a wolf at large. We in the Conservative Party believe that neither the trustee savings banks nor the joint stock banks should be cast in the role of Little Red Riding Hood. We give support to the general principles in the Bill, although there are many aspects of detail that we shall wish to scrutinise carefully in Committee.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: As the House knows, I have supported the action taken by this Government, in quite the opposite direction from that described by the hon. Member for Horn-castle (Mr. Tapsell), as outlined in Labour's programme to free the trustee savings bank from the shackles of Government. The benefits to the consumer are already being seen, and this is a welcome development.
I hope that we shall give the Bill a speedy passage through the House—certainly those parts of it that are found to be necessary—because this will enable the banks to get on with the job and enable them to be masters in their own house,


providing a wider range of service and greater competition in banking than now exists.
Having said that, my first reaction on seeing the Bill was one of intense irritation that it was even necessary. I and other Labour colleagues, particularly those in the Co-operative Group, have been pressing the Government to get other legislation which we believe to be vitally important through the House before the end of this Session. Therefore, it is profoundly irritating to us to find the time of the House being taken up with legislation which should not have been necessary. Some of us are very annoyed that we are now having to spend time on a Bill which would not have been necessary if a little more forethought had been given to the matter.
Having listened to the Minister and having examined the Bill, I still wonder whether some of its provisions are necessary. However, unfortunately, at the end of the day we shall, as always, have to take the advice of the lawyers. When the Minister says that it is not possible under Section 9(1) of the previous legislation for trustee savings banks to lend on mortgages, because that is not the normal run-of-the-mill banking business, I find that rather surprising. I have worked in two banking organisations. In the Midland Bank, for which I worked first, securities on mortgages were taken on a whole series of loans. Indeed, it is widely known that apart from mortgages given to customers by banks, all banks offer mortgages to their staff as the normal course of events. If there were any fear that Section 9(1) was not adequate to cover mortgages given by the trustee savings banks, the precedents which exist in all the clearing banks could have been used to justify the practice. I should be interested to hear the Minister's reaction on this point.
The Minister then said that the banks may not have power to give loans. He went into great detail, and perhaps when we study his comments and examine the relevant clauses we may find that he is correct. However it is staggering if the Minister is saying that we put through a Bill to give the trustee savings banks power to carry on banking business only to find that they have not the power to give loans. What a peculiar state of affairs.
That is why some of us are profoundly irritated to find that the Bill is necessary. If the banks do not have powers to make loans under the previous legislation, what the dickens were we playing at when we put the legislation through? They should have this power, and if it is not clear—and I should have thought that it was perfectly clear—the Government have been remiss.
The power to borrow which is being given was discussed at length in Committee and during the other stages of the previous Bill. During the discussions on how the banks were to be supervised, and what their powers were to be, there was no suggestion that the power to borrow or to make loans would raise any problems. I have to ask who has challenged the previous legislation. I have not found any evidence of the power being challenged. Who has questioned the power? Has it come entirely from within the Treasury or from within the banks themselves or has legal action been threatened against a trustee savings bank or the Central Board? Can the Minister give a little more evidence to justify the need for some of the clauses in the Bill?
The Minister said that the Bill is a small measure, but it has 20 subsections and is not as small as some Bills we have seen. It is by no means insignificant.
My right hon. Friend did not say anything about the general progress of the trustee savings banks in their transition and it would be useful to have a few general comments on how they are progressing and what developments are taking place. Are they recruiting the staff they need without difficulty? Are their new freedoms being exercised in the way that was expected? Is there a growth of business?
There was discussion on the earlier Bill about representation on the boards of trustees. Anxiety was expressed at the narrow range of people represented on the boards. It was pointed out that more than one-quarter of the trustees were aged over 70 and that 10 per cent. of them were aged over 75. An undertaking was given that the matter would be discussed with the trustee savings banks' representatives in order to broaden the representation to include trade unionists and others with a broader background so


that the narrower representation could be changed and a much broader representation provided. I should be grateful if the Minister could comment on how this has developed.
My sympathy remains with trustee savings banks developing as rapidly as possible to provide a full range of competitive services, and I shall do all I can to speed the Bill on its way.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: The very clarity of the Minister's introduction of the Bill made clear that it was necessary because two previous Bills were defective. Hon. Members have commented on this fact and it is becoming a feature of our proceedings that we have to legislate because of the defects of previous Bills.
The only solution is to legislate less. We attempt to do far too much. Gone are the days when Neville Chamberlain made his reputation by passing 24 Bills from his Department in one Session. The best epitaph that any Minister could have on his tombstone today is, "He was a very good Minister. He never introduced a Bill".
However, as the Bill has been introduced, I should like to discuss local savings and their disposal. Despite efforts to free them, the trustee savings banks are still under tight control of the National Debt Commissioners and the Treasury. I should like to see that control loosened to enable the banks to invest more locally. At present, trustee savings banks collect local savings, but then take them out of the places where they are generated. It is essential to channel local savings into local industry, trade, fishing, agriculture and so on and, possibly, mortgages.
Many regions with high unemployment have to look to smaller industries if they want more employment, and regional development is still important for this country. Unfortunately, savings banks are becoming less local.
I have some sympathy with the plea for the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) that the composition of the banks' boards should be looked at, partly to broaden the pool from which they are recruited but also to keep their local contacts. We are talking not only of considerable sums nationally—about £4,700 million—but a surprising amount

of savings that are collected in local savings banks. Such banks are regarded by many local people as the main means of saving, but the savings are taken out of the district.
In many places that have been short of capital, oil and, perhaps, redundancy payments, will bring in extra money and it is important that these funds should be reinvested in productive work in the areas where the savings have been generated.
Not long ago, I visited the 66 co-operatives at Mondragon in northern Spain, which are entirely run by the workers. Up to now they have been extremely successful, and central to their operation is the co-operative bank, the Casa Laboral Popular. It supplies a great deal of the capital and expertise. It collects the savings in Biscaya and channels them into local industry. That is exactly what I should like to see, but there is no equivalent in this country, and that is a serious defect in our regional and banking arrangements.
We take money out of areas such as the Highlands of Scotland, the North-East of England and South Wales and then set up elaborate machinery—such as the Highland and Islands Development Board and the Scottish Development Agency—to put it back. In the process, a lot of money is lost through administrative and other costs. It is illogical to strip savings from places that do not have enough capital and then set up large agencies to put the money back.
The same criticism applies to building societies. This is relevant because mortgages are included in the Bill. For years, no building society would give loans in remote parts of the country, particularly in my constituency, but when oil was discovered, they set up offices in prominent sites not to assist local inhabitants but to collect their savings and take them down to South-East England. It is still difficult to get building society loans in remote parts of the country and if the savings banks go into the business—and, if they have the expertise to do so, I would welcome that—they should lend in the places where they raise the money.
The question of skill available to the banks is a central question to my argument, but I believe that they should if necessary now be turning their attention to collecting the skills if they are to go


into mortgages or local lending to industry. Certainly they should seek to gather the skills required for local investment. The local savings banks act in this way in Norway. They invest in local industry and have built up the skills which the ordinary bank manager in this country often has, to enable them to do this type of investment.
Up to now, under the tight regulations of the trustee savings banks' other savings, they have largely invested in Government stock. If it is said that my suggestion would be risky, I would point out that nothing has been more downright unfortunate than heavy investment in Government stock over the last 20 years or so. It cannot be said that the investors in the savings banks have got a good deal. I doubt whether they have anything like kept up with inflation. It is partly for that reason that the banks have now been organised to found a unit trust.
I wonder whether the banks are not going into the unit trust business at just the wrong moment. I fear that, like most unit trusts, they will put most of their funds into the big companies—apart from specialist examples, all unit trusts invest in ICI, Shell and so on—at the very moment when those big basic industries in this country will be more and more threatened by imports from Korea, America and other places, and Britain's economy may have to turn over far more into a new generation of industries. I doubt whether unit trusts will be in the van of that movement.
So if it is argued that the risk of my suggestion would be too heavy, I point to Norway and to the possibility of control. I would favour a separate form of deposit for local investment. I doubt also whether the present system has done much for the investor.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I would hate the right hon. Gentleman to develop an inaccurate argument. The trustee savings banks movement has had a unit trust since 1968 and already has over £75 million invested. That trust has done somewhat better than most of the Stock Exchange indicators.

Mr. Grimond: I was not denying that. I know that the movement has had a unit trust for some years and that, as

trusts go, it has done reasonably well. But I still doubt whether, taking account of inflation and so on, the investors would not have done better to buy whisky. Many pension funds are now turning to art. Those who clamour most for productive investment are often secretly buying up Impressionist pictures.
I have not examined the matter in detail but I should be surprised if the unit trust has done much more than keep up with inflation—if that. If it has done as much, it has done better than the investment of the House of Commons Pension Fund, of which I am a trustee, so I give it all praise. But those who invested in Government stocks over the last 20 or 30 years have not matched inflation.
So I am not against the TSB unit trust, but I wonder whether that should be the only form of equity investment open to the banks. One of the purposes of the banks, according to the 1969 Act, is to encourage thrift. I go along with that. It is very important to the Chancellor that as much money as possible should be mopped up by saving, but it might become part of the banks' duty to encourage local development as well. I hope that, if not in this Bill, as the banks gradually advance into new fields, the points that I have made will be kept in mind.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Jim Craigen: The Minister assured us that the Bill is a technical one to clarify the services which the trustee savings banks already thought that they could provide. To that extent, it will help the TSB movement. But it is an example of "If at first you don't succeed, try and try again". I hope that this time the parliamentary draftsmen have got it right and that the position of the trustee savings banks will be secure.
I agreed with much that my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) said about the services which the banks might provide. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) was right to stress the importance of the TSB movement to individual localities. They have grown up on that basis.
As the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) said, the movement originated in Dumfriesshire. I was a little bemused by what he said about 1066


because that date does not have the same connotations in Scotland as it does in England.
As a result of the Page Report and rationalisation in the last few years the number of individual banks is now down to 19 and there has perhaps been a growth in anonymity. I hope that some consideration will be given to the representativeness of boards of trustees. The movement will come up against a real problem here in the years ahead in involving lay people.
Although it is not at the moment envisaged that many of the trustee savings banks will want to undertake mortgage lending, I am sure that some of them will, in the near future. From discussions with trustees and management in the West of Scotland Trustee Savings Bank, I am sure that this is something that they would like to do.
I would certainly welcome such an intervention in the housing market. I hope that the trustee savings bank, with its local identity, will do what some of the building societies are diffident about doing—providing mortgages in difficult areas such as the central conurbation of Clydeside. In that area the building societies are often loath to provide funds for certain property, mainly tenemented, to either young or older people.
If the trustee savings bank is to become truly a third force, it will be important for it to remember that it is a bank, with a social purpose. Its origins are essentially local and that is one of the movement's strongest cards in its future operation.
Many people, like myself, became involved with the TSB movement simply because their grandparents or their parents took out a deposit account for them. I have subsequently become associated with the work of the Parliamentary Committee. In future, it may not be such a common practice for parents to open deposit accounts. If the movement wants to attract young people it will have to become more closely associated with services which many young people, particularly married couples, are now seeking, like mortgage lending.
Many valid points have already been made. I hope that we have things right this time and that we are doing what

we thought we had done in the 1976 Act.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I begin by declaring my interest as a depositor in the trustee savings bank, a member of my local committee for 25 years, and a trustee of the largest savings bank in the country. Like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen), I am a member of the Parliamentary Committee.
It is unfortunate that the parliamentary draftsmen got it wrong. However, they are human beings. We sometimes make a little too much of saying "Is it not a pity that mistakes have been made?" In some respects we would live in an undesirable world if occasionally human beings did not make mistakes. Ministers should not make mistakes because many people believe that they are not human. Civil servants cannot defend themselves and they should not be attacked by us. I acquit the parliamentary draftsmen of some of the things that have been said about them this afternoon.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) that the Chair never makes mistakes.

Mr. Finsberg: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that you referred to the "right hon. Gentleman", but I am not sure. Hansard will doubtless tell me whether that was so.
Why is the Bill needed by the trustee savings bank movement? It is a tidying up Bill. I do not know what went on between the usual channels, but it seems that the Bill would have been an ideal candidate for a Second Reading Committee. I cannot understand why it has had to be dealt with on the Floor of the House. It is not necessary for it to take up much time. On this occasion there is no need for anyone to raise the wider arguments that most of us who are concerned with and who understand the trustee savings bank movement went through in great detail when putting the 1976 Act on the statute book. There is not very much in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) referred to elderly trustees. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there was no discretion for the Minister because the Act stated that


those trustees would have to retire at 70 years of age. A substantial number have already gone.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the need to make the boards more representative. Proposals are being formulated by the Central Board to allow for the election of depositors. There was never any question of trade unions being represented. The depositors are those who matter. It is their money that is at stake. I am quite sure that some of them, like myself, are trade unionists. Considering the outstanding success of the trustee savings bank movement, we would be unwise to make too many changes in the composition of the boards that have ultimate responsibility for running the banks.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I take the hon. Gentleman's point when he says that it was never intended that trade unions should be represented. I hope that he will not misinterpret what I way saying and what has been said on other occasions. Reference has been made to trade unionists to illustrate the breadth of people who could sit on the boards and who are not doing so at present. It should be clear to the hon. Gentleman, if he does not already know, that the National Union of Bank Employees feels strongly that in these times of discussion about industrial democracy the trade unions should be represented at that level.

Mr. Finsberg: That is an issue to be considered. I wish that the National Union of Bank Employees would consider the interests of customers and depositors, and would not, for example, block the opening of banks on Saturdays. I am sure that many members of NUBE would qualify, because they are depositors. I should have no objection to that. My objection to that sort of industrial democracy is when trade unionists sit on boards to represent the unions and not the depositors, who are the key to the whole operation.
Important progress has been made since the Page Report. Last year, which was pre-Page, the trustee savings bank movement had £94 million in the current account with reserves of £90 million. In 1977 the current account increased to £224 million and reserves grew to £199 million. That is very satisfactory progress.
All the banks have done exceptionally well, although it is reasonable to note that there is still one bank that has not come within the ambit of the Central Board and does not seem to have done quite as well as the others. No doubt its depositors will have something to say about that at the right moment.
There are three or four other points of importance that need to be made. As has already been said, the banking system of the TSB movement is moving with the times. The number of cheque accounts in operation, which were introduced in 1965 against opposition from the joint stock banks, reached half a million in 1974, three quarters of a million in 1975, and doubled to 11 million by 1977. Much of that growth was as a result of the 1976 Act and the interest generated by the Page Report.
The other main change was the ability to operate credit services. The ability so to operate was delayed because it was disputed whether the wage agreement, the bonus and the productivity arrangements that were agreed between the bank and its staff fell within the Government's then criteria. I still think that they did. I believe that the TSBs should have fought a bit harder to get its views accepted and known. However, it did not and there was a delay.
Already the amount of loans outstanding are £26 million. That is a great credit to the bank as it indicates its willingness to operate such a scheme. As from November a TSB trust card will operate that will be part of the Visa card system. It will give customers of the bank the opportunity to participate more widely in general banking services.
It is fair to say, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) pointed out, that there are restrictions on the loans that the banks may make. Those restrictions are covered mainly by Schedule 3 of the 1976 Act. However, the banks make fairly substantial loans to local authorities in their areas. It is not right to say that all the money is taken away to go to the centre because the individual banks have the power—they exercise it quite frequently—to make such loans in their own areas. I hope that in the run-up to what is technically known as Day Y, much more freedom will be given to allow the banks to lend in wider areas.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the hon. Member for Thornaby wondered whether professionalism and skill are present in the TSB movement. I can only say as a layman that it is my opinion that we do have professionalism in the movement. It is not very encouraging to depositors to hear it being questioned whether it exists within the movement. The general managers and others who run its most successful unit trust movement are highly skilled. The bank depositors and those who put their money into the unit trusts are being exceptionally well served. I have no doubt that as Day Y reaches us and the freedom is available that the right hon. Gentleman rightly seeks along with the TSB movement, the banks will use it to the advantage of customers and depositors.
Who raised the queries that led to the introduction of the Bill? The query lying with mortgages in Clause I was raised by the Land Registry, which has so far refused to register many of the deeds which were the subject of a grant, as the Minister of State said, from Birmingham. It was not, as it were, an in-house legal quibble. It was the Land Registry.
Clauses 2 and 3 were raised by the trustee savings bank movement. Its lawyers seemed to suggest that there was a doubt. Clearly, the Treasury agreed. That is why those clauses appear in the Bill.
I turn to the repayment from the National Debt Commissioners; had the Central Board insisted on the immediate repayment of £1,500 million in cash, there would have been a catastrophic effect on the gilts market. Equally, the savings banks did not want to take over the grim portfolio that had been amassed over the years by Governments of both major parties.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland did not seem happy about the investment policy of the House of Commons Pension Fund trustees. I do not think that over the years the National Debt Commissioners have behaved brilliantly in the way that they have handled savings bank deposits—whether trustee savings banks or Post Office savings accounts. I am with the right hon. Gentleman 100 per cent. on that matter. It was agreed that there had to be this phased repayment in tranches.

As it proceeds, I think that the banks will be satisfied that they will be able to provide the service that they want to give.
The one worry of those who have years of experience of the trustee savings banks has been that, to get the efficiency demanded by the 1976 Act, it has been necessary to reduce dramatically the number of banks. The banks are now viable, but they have the disadvantage that they know their particular localities less well. For example, when it comes to making loans to industry—the bank of which I am a trustee in the South-East covers an enormous area—the bank will put more responsibility on its professional management. That will in turn require more skilled trustees sitting on the appropriate board to evaluate the advice that is put before them. It is similar to the advice that Ministers have to take. They will always get advice which they are told by their advisers is good advice, but in the end they have to decide whether it is good advice. I f they are poor quality, some poor quality advice will slip through.
This tidying-up measure gives another opportunity for deciding how we are to get marching in step the obviously increased professionalism of the management of the trustee savings banks with the need for getting more highly skilled trustees. That will not necessarily be the result of having a proportion of trustees elected from the depositors. The figures show that the depositors have had no complaint about what has been done for them so far. I am concerned that that progress should continue. The Bill does nothing to hinder that progress, but it does a lot to help it. Bluntly, I hope that the Bill will get a fair wind and that it might be out of Committee in less than one full sitting.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. William Wilson: It does not appear from the progress record to which we have just listened as though the drafting errors have had any adverse effects upon the trustee savings banks movement. Despite the mistakes, matters have gone on as we all hoped that they would.
I do not join in the criticism of parliamentary draftsmen. They have a difficult task to perform. Having sat on the Joint Consolidation Committee for the


last 13 years and observed parliamentary draftsmen perhaps more closely than have many other hon. Members, I can speak only of my unbounded admiration for them. This has indeed been an exception.
I do not wish to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) into the wilds of Norway or into the heat of Spain. I ask one simple question to which I should like a reply from my hon. Friend in winding up the debate. I suggest that depositors, when they read that they have received 10 per cent. interest instead of 4 per cent. interest and are assured that they will not have to repay it, will wonder whether my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will demand that income tax be paid upon the extra 6 per cent. If it has been paid by mistake, as it has, and they have no lawful entitlement to it, will the Treasury seek to take some of it back under the heading of income tax? It is a mundane question. However, I suspect that many depositors are more likely to ponder that question than any of the others that have been raised today.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: It is difficult to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) because, despite calling himself a layman, he is obviously an expert on trustee savings banks.
This is a necessary Bill from what we have been told. But, as several hon. Members have said, it is extremely irritating that we should have to go over the same ground twice because the 1976 Act was so faulty.
We cannot blame the parliamentary draftsmen. The numbers recruited are in the hands of the Government. I think that Governments of both major parties have over the last few years over-pressed parliamentary draftsmen by far too much legislation. As has been said, there is always a great desire by every Department to put its imprint on several Bills. There are always Bills in the top or bottom drawers gathering dust which civil servants want to bring out for fear that they might be unemployed. There are always do-gooders who want to bring up the particular bees in their bonnets. Therefore, we pass far too much ill-digested legislation. Errors are not spotted

because parliamentary draftsmen are overworked.
I declare my interest as a depositor in a trustee savings bank. But if I heard correctly that the Government are to withdraw their tax concession, I am not sure that I shall be a depositor after 1979.
I am a great admirer of the trustee savings banks. They are local, friendly banks used by large numbers of people. I find them more flexible than the main street banks. It is a pity that they have been forced to close on Saturdays. However, they have more flexible hours than other banks.
I was interested to learn that trustee savings banks can in certain circumstances lend on mortgage. I am not so against that idea as I thought I should be. My hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) said that the trustee savings banks did not have the expertise. But expertise can be bought.

Mr. Tapsell: Perhaps I may clarify that point. I was not necessarily against the idea in principle. I merely wanted to be assured that the trustee savings banks would have the necessary expertise before embarking upon mortgage lending.

Mr. Hawkins: I am sure that the trustee savings banks are possibly even more cautious in some respects than other banks and that they would make sure that they had the expertise before embarking on such a course.
I should like to see more opportunities for people to obtain mortgages. The trustee savings banks are in touch with many working people who require mortgage help. The building societies have become very hidebound. There are certain areas in which they will not lend, despite the fact that they have enormous sums of money to lend. It would not be a bad idea if the trustee savings banks had a little competition.
I declare an interest as a chartered surveyor. I do not believe that the limitation on mortgages by building societies at the Government's request will have the desired effect. I believe that it will prevent people from moving from one part of the country to another. Such movement is important to employment. It will not stop prices from rising because


building costs for new houses are rising and the price of old houses will rise in line with that. People will withdraw houses from the market, which is already inadequately supplied.
I hope that the trustee savings bank will not be tarred with the same brush as the other banks. There is talk of making opening hours less flexible and the Government intend to stop the tax-free allowances. That will take away some of the attraction of the trustee savings banks.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) spoke of investments in small local industries. This is an area which the trustee savings banks should examine. I understand that through local authorities they lend money to localities. We must look to small industries in small towns and villages to improve employment. The local knowledge of the trustee savings banks will stand them in good stead in that respect.
I am aware that several branches have been closed but the East Anglian Trustee Savings Bank, which has existed for a long time, has many people who have the requisite knowledge and expertise to advise on investment in local industry.
I wish the Bill a fair wind. I hope that the trustee savings banks will go from strength to strength. I hope that they will widen their activities so that they are of even more use to the localities in which they have grown up.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I shall try to deal with some of the issues that have been raised. The hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) asked about mortgage lending and whether the trustee savings banks in general will move into this sphere. As I explained, this is now merely a problem which relates to the former Birmingham Municipal Bank. There are no plans at the moment for this to happen generally. The Treasury has power to designate trustee savings banks with the power to lend on mortgage. However, there is no present intention of doing that. The situation will develop over the years and the matter will be examined again.
The hon. Member for Horncastle said that this Treasury direction and the powers of borrowing should be in the legislation. On reflection, I am sure that he will appreciate that the powers necessary to supervise any bank should not

be laid down in detail in legislation because circumstances can change rapidly. The supervisory authority—be it the Treasury, or the Bank of England in relation to other banks—has to have a certain flexibility. It is not practicable to enshrine that detailed supervision in legislation.
The hon. Member asked when the tax concession would be withdrawn. I understand that it must be withdrawn by the Finance Act 1979 at the latest and that it will be withdrawn in that legislation.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) seemed to mourn the fact that the tax concession is to be taken away from ordinary accounts. If it were not taken away the joint stock bank fraternity would complain, because if trustee savings banks are to become the third force in banking, as the Page Report recommended, they should compete on a more or less equal basis with the other banking forces.

Mr. Hawkins: Could the Minister not grant the same allowances to accounts at ordinary banks? That would widen the matter and be even more advantageous.

Mr. Davies: That is a difficult question, which I shall not deal with now. I was explaining why the concession was being taken away.
The hon. Member for Horncastle mentioned the deficiency on the securities that are invested with the National Debt Commissioners. I believe that the deficit is about £50 million and that it has come down from the original £200 million. The hon. Member also asked about early repayment. That would be a call on public expenditure. I am sure that with the need to restrain public expenditure the hon. Member will not wish to aggravate the problem. He also asked about deposits and reserves. He mentioned a figure of 4·8 per cent. I do not know whether that is correct, but I have no reason to doubt it. The hon. Member asked if the target figure would be raised by 1986. I cannot answer for future Governments, but the agreement is as the hon. Member suggested.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) asked why it was necessary to grant specific powers to the trustee savings banks to


lend on mortgage when they could be covered by the phrase "carrying on the ordinary business of banking". It would not be covered by that phrase. I am not aware that joint stock banks lend money for longer than eight years for house purchase. They do not make the building society-type loans, although they may lend money to their staff for house purchase. For that reason it is better to clarify the power and make it clear in the Bill.
My hon. Friend then asked who raised the question of the ultra vires nature of the power to lend on mortgage. The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Fins-berg) answered this, as he did many other points. I am grateful to him. We thought that it was right to clarify the matter for the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby also referred to the narrow range of people represented on the boards. The hon. Member for Hampstead again came to my rescue and answered this question. He said that the 1976 legislation put a limit of 70 years of age on membership and that this would continue to have its effect upon the nature and age of members of the boards.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) made an interesting intervention, which he has made before, but it was none the worse for that. He raised a valid point. He said that there was a danger that when we had central supervision of these institutions, savings would be attracted out of the locality and invested centrally, to the detriment of local industry and business. There is much in what the right hon. Gentleman said. The dilemma here is that banks must have a certain amount of central supervision and control for the protection of depositors, but in the process of securing that the local connection tends to get lost.
This does not happen in other countries where there is not so much concern for the protection of depositors. In the United States, for example, there is a thriving local banking community which can plough resources back into the locality. That presents a very real problem for us, but it is a problem of which the TSB Central Board is aware. It appreci-

ates that the TSB roots are local and regional. Whether those roots can be retained with the kind of central efficiency that is needed for an expansion of the business is not something that I can say. I hope, however, that this dilemma can be resolved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Wilson) raised an interesting point. He said that the 10 per cent. that was paid on investment accounts in place of the 4 per cent. that should have been paid should not be taxable. The answer to that is the same as the answer to the point that he raised in his intervention; the quality of the payment is not illegal, and neither is the quality of the mortgage invalid. The issue in question is the power of the TSBs to make this payment. They may be accountable somewhere along the line for any damage that may arise as a result of it. In many cases, however, it is not clear to just whom they are accountable. The payment is in the pockets of depositors, and no doubt the Inland Revenue will recover the tax.

Mr. William Wilson: Of course the money is in the pockets of depositors. If what the Minister has told us is correct, however, that money should not have been paid. The depositor had no right to it. That being so, why should he pay tax on money to which he has no right?

Mr. Davies: I hate to disagree with my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished lawyer, but of course the depositor has a right to the payment. The question of the validity of the payment is a matter between the trustees and those to whom they might be accountable.
As the hon. Member for Hampstead said, this is a small Bill, which is meant to put matters right. There were errors in the 1976 legislation. We should not be too hard on Ministers or parliamentary draftsmen for that, because the trustee savings banks are of a strange nature. They began a long time ago. For a bank to be run by trustees is a very unusual situation. Having grown up over the years, the system is bound to have anomalies and difficulties, and it is not surprising that when these banks are now being freed from the constraints of Government these problems should arise.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that it was in no sense of vindictiveness or antagonism that I expressed irritation. The irritation arose predominantly because there are other pieces of legislation that we want to see become law and we would prefer that they should have precedence over measures of this sort.

Mr. Davies: I appreciate that. I have no great desire to stand at this Dispatch Box to put this Bill through, except that it is necessary and it will enable the TSBs to carry on and increase and improve their services. It is part of the process by which they are to be freed from Government control. For these reasons, I hope that the House will see fit to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT SUBSIDIES BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL OF EXPENDITURE

'(1) The Secretary of State shall not, after 30th June 1978—

(a) set up any new scheme whose expected cost exceeds £10 million a year; or
(b) alter or extend any existing scheme, set up after that date and not so far costing more than £10 million a year, in such a way that the expected cost of the scheme as altered or extended exceeds that amount,
unless he has previously been authorised to do so by a resolution of the House of Commons.

(2) If the expected cost of a new scheme proposed to be set up, or of an existing scheme as proposed to be altered or extended, exceeds those limits, the Secretary of State shall, with a view to obtaining such a resolution, lay before the House of Commons a statement explaining the proposal.

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) above do not apply where the Secretary of State is satisfied that compliance would involve unacceptable delay in the taking of urgent essential measures against unemployment; but if he proceeds

without a resolution of the House he shall lay before the House a statement of the action he has taken and his reasons for so proceeding.'—[Mr. Golding.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.13 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Golding): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is an important new clause. My hon. Friends and the Opposition pressed on the Government very strongly in Committee that a Bill which gives the Government such great powers should be subject to control by the House of Commons. We were unable to accept the Opposition amendment in Committee because it would have introduced elements of delay and an inability to change the details of the schemes in the light of parliamentary pressure. I am glad to say that, thanks to the co-operation of my hon. Friends and the Opposition, we have produced a clause that satisfies the needs of the House.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe: I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the clause. It arises from a clear assurance that he gave in Committee. He will recall that on Second Reading I expressed very strongly from the Opposition Benches the view that it was wrong for the immense enabling powers conferred on the Secretary of State by the Bill to be exercised without parliamentary control.
It is something of a paradox that we should be discussing now a matter of considerable importance to Parliament. We are discussing the clause in a Chamber which is as empty as circumstances would normally permit, given that there is other business to follow. The emptiness of the Chamber, however, should not be taken as in any way detracting from the important principle that the Government are acknowledging with the clause, which is that there should be an element of parliamentary control over the expenditure of large sums of public money.
Perhaps the Minister will consider one small detail and reflect on whether something should be done to correct the matter in another place. The formulation of the clause follows very closely that adopted in


the Industry Act 1972. That Act provides that where urgency prevails the Secretary of State can act and then lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement of what he has done. This clause provides only that he should lay that statement before the House of Commons. Is there some significance in that?
On Second Reading I promised that the Bill would get a fair wind and I think the Minister will acknowledge that that has happened. In no small part that has been due to the positive and constructive response of the Minister in Committee to the various amendments. That seemed to be a model way of proceeding. Points were made and accepted, and pledges were given. Now we are seeing them brought to fruition.
That whole performance is in stark contrast to the attempts by some Labour Members earlier today in discussion of the statement by the Secretary of State for Employment on jobs measures to try to make petty party propaganda points about obstruction by the Opposition of the various job subsidy programmes. It was clear from this afternoon's statement that this Bill is crucial to those measures and that it must be got through Parliament quickly. This is being done because of the co-operation of the Opposition. In view of that those Labour Members, only one of whom is now here, might want to withdraw the comments that they made. They should bear in mind the experience that the Government have had with this Bill.

Mr. Mike Noble: Like the hon. Member for Brentford and Isle-worth (Mr. Hayhoe), I welcome the clause. It is important that the House should have an opportunity to discuss the schemes, and the hon. Gentleman has shown why. He said that Labour Members were unduly critical of the Opposition's attitude this afternoon when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his statement. One reason why we should have the opportunity to discuss the schemes is that it is very difficult for hon. Members and people outside the House to understand the Opposition's attitude. For example, comments are made by the hon. Gentleman and by his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), and it would appear that never the twain shall meet.
My constituens are particularly interested not only in the Government's observations but in the Opposition's attitude on these matters. Therefore, it is important that we have the opportunity to debate such things.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): A few minutes ago the hon. Gentleman approached me and asked whether he could take part in the Third Reading debate. I told him that there would be no Third Reading debate. I hope that he will not try now to do what he proposed to do on Third Reading. I ask him to stay in order by sticking to the new clause.

Mr. Noble: I intend to stick to the clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My right hon. Friend made a statement today about the continuation of the temporary employment subsidy and other measures, including the job release scheme and the subsidy for small firms. Hon. Members were given a great deal of information, which had to be digested fairly quickly. In the two hours or so since my right hon. Friend made his statement I have been inundated with telephone calls from people in North-West Lancashire in general and my constituency in particular who are interested in the scheme. It is remarkable that that kind of interest has been shown already. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) last night made in my constituency what was advertised as a major policy statement on the industries in which we are interested, but could attract only 20 people to his meeting. What has happened since my right hon. Friend's statement is a comment on the importance that people in my constituency attach to the statement and to my right hon. Friend's other remarks.
It is true that a considerable amount of money is at stake in the schemes. It is equally true that at the and of 12 months or two years we shall be in a position to study their full effects and perhaps modify them and improve them if necessary. Therefore, I am pleased to support the clause and I am glad that my right hon. Friend is including it in the Bill.

Mr. Golding: I am very pleased that my hon. Friend will support the clause.
I say in response to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) that we would prefer the statement to be to this House because we think that that is on all fours with our undertaking that the House had the authority to debate these matters. I believe that this House is of extreme importance when discussing matters of this sort, which relate to the spending of money, and therefore I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any hope.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Clause 1

SCHEMES FOR FINANCING EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Golding: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6, leave out from 'level' to end of line 8.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may take Government Amendment No. 2.

Mr. Golding: In Committee we inserted a provision to make certain that there was consultation with employers and workers. I think that we made a mess of it in Committee, putting the provision in the wrong place. The amendments are to strengthen the right to consultation.

Mr. Hayhoe: When I moved the relevant amendment in Committee, I said that it was probably defective in some way, and indeed it was, because it applied only to schemes that would operate in Great Britain and not to those that would operate in Northern Ireland. The Government amendments leave the substance of the matter entirely the same but widen the consultations to cover schemes affecting both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They cover the whole Bill. I welcome the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 1, line 18, at end insert:
'(3) Before setting up any such scheme, the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Department shall consult with such organisations, including those representing employers and workers, respectively, as are considered appropriate.'.—[Mr. Golding.]

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

As amended, (in the Standing Committee) considered.

New Clause 2

MINOR AMENDMENTS

'The enactments set out in the Schedule to this Act shall have effect subject to the amendments respectively specified in that Schedule, being minor amendments.'.—[Mr. McElhone.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.25 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this we may take Government Amendment No. 7.

Mr. McElhone: The clause and the amendment will restore to the Bill the clause which gives effect to the schedule and restore the schedule itself. Both were deleted from the Bill in Committee, but it is the Government's intention that they should now be restored.
The schedule consists of four paragraphs. Two of these, paragraphs 1 and 4, are simply corrections of drafting errors in the original legislation. A third paragraph makes an amendment to the wording of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to bring it into line with that elsewhere in the Act, since there is no difference in meaning. All three are minor technical amendments which do not introduce any changes of substance.
The remaining paragraph, paragraph 2, changes the day for local government elections in Scotland from the first Tuesday in May to the first Thursday in May. It was this change to which the Conservatives objected. I would like to explain to the House why the change is necessary.
In March 1976 the Government announced that from 1978 there should


be an additional public holiday, which in England is to be the first Monday in May. In Scotland, as hon. Members know, statutory Bank holidays apply only to the banks. General public holidays are decided locally by the district council. Consequently, the Government consulted the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which decided that it would like to recommend to its members that in this case the holiday should be a general one and should be on the first Monday in May. To make this possible it asked that the day at present prescribed for local elections should be altered from the first Tuesday in May. It pointed out that it would not be possible to undertake all the necessary preparatory work for the elections every second year if the previous day was a public holiday.
The Government felt that it was right to meet the wish of the local authorities in this matter, and so proposed that local elections should be altered to the first Thursday in May as the change least likely to disturb existing arrangements. Thursday is also the day of the week when voters are most likely to be at home and, as has been found with parliamentary elections, is a generally suitable day for the purpose.
The Scottish system of holidays varying from area to area has advantages, but in this case both the local authorities and business interests have suggested to us that a common date would be preferable. This paragraph in the schedule which I am asking the House to restore will enable this to happen.
This was a subject of some contention in Committee, but I hope that the Opposition will, on reflection, accept the clause and the amendment in the interests of the business community, in which they have a substantial interest, and in the interests of COSLA, which made the approach to us. The changes should be made if we believe in Wheatley and the 1973 Act, which the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) put through the House in great style. I think that he would accept that part of the philosophy of that Act was to give more power to the local authorities. That was also the intention of Wheatley.
We are simply responding to a very reasonable approach by COSLA and business interests. I hope that the Opposi-

tion will reconsider the views that they had in Committee and will accept the schedule and the new clause.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Following the discussion of this point in Committee our object in moving our amendment was to give the Minister the opportunity to think again. Unfortunately, he has not taken that opportunity. The reason he has given today for his proposals—he has stuck very much to the same brief today as he did in Committee—is to the effect that the advice from the local community is so strong on this issue that we should automatically accept it. I am sure that the Minister will agree that we in this House must consider not just the time and date of local elections but all the other relevant factors.
There are other considerations which come into play here. For example, there is the effect which this change of date has on all the other elections which are likely to occur in Scotland, if we are sufficiently unlucky. I listed them in Committee and I am sure that I do not need to list them again for the Minister. Those who take an interest in the debate might like to be reminded that we are talking of having district, regional, Assembly, Westminster, European and community council elections. That will cover every day of the week, if we try to allocate a day for each as we argued in Committee.
We have tried to take into account—as well as the overall effect of elections in Scotland—the effect on education and on the schoolchildren of breaking up the week. I am glad to see that we have with us a former school teacher in the person of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), who takes a deep interest in this matter. If we break up the week, with a holiday on the Monday and elections on the Thursday, it will be difficult to keep things under control, especially with the degree of truancy in Scotland, which appears to be worsening.
We have tried to take into account not just particular business interests, as the Minister suggested, but the interests of the community as a whole. That is why we gave the Minister this opportunity to think again. He says that it is inconvenient for the preparations for polling on a Tuesday to be carried out on a Monday, during a holiday. Inconvenient


for whom? Those who are interested in democracy, as I am sure the Minister is, and who want to solicit votes should be happy to go about on any day of the week for that purpose. The officials involved will be paid extra if they work on a holiday. That should appeal to them. I wonder whose interests the Minister has in mind especially when we remember that we are talking about Labour Day. If there is anything that should appeal to Labour Members—perhaps I should say this to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire and to the Minister, since they are the only hon. Members present on the Government Benches—it ought to be the thought of sacrificing this great occasion in trying to persuade people to vote for their party on the following day.
The Minister has failed to take so many other matters into account. He has been narrow in his approach. He has considered what has been said by COSLA and one or two others. If we look at the interests of the community in Scotland as a whole it will be realised that the amendment which we moved in Committee was in the best interests of all concerned.

Mr. George Younger: As we are being asked to add the new schedule to the Bill, I am disappointed that it does not include a minor amendment to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, which I would very much like to see. When I saw the Title of the Bill, which refers to:
minor amendments to the … Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973
I was encouraged to think that the Minister might be about to put right something which I believe, through no one's fault, is going wrong in connection with the redefining of local government boundaries throughout Scotland.
This new clause would be an ideal opportunity to put right this defect. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) on tabling an amendment relating to this point. I understand that it has not been selected for debate, but I congratulate the hon. Member because his amendment would have met the point that I seek to make. I wish to draw the Minister's attention to the workings of Schedule 6 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. I do not believe that it is being operated

in a way which is giving satisfaction to those affected by it throughout Scotland and I do not believe that it is being operated in the manner in which the House intended when the legislation was enacted.
In Schedule 6 is laid down the criteria upon which local government boundaries are to be drawn up, and redefined from time to time, by the Local Government Boundary Commission. It is made clear that the first consideration is to try to equalise, as far as possible, the number of electors in each local government area. I entirely agree that that is an important consideration, indeed the first consideration. In passing, I would say that many of us wish that parliamentary constituencies were also rather more equal.
It is when we come to the other criteria that I believe things are going wrong. It is clearly stated in Schedule 6(3) that
Subject to sub-paragraph (2) above, in considering the electoral arrangements referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above regard shall be had to—

(a) the desirablity of fixing boundaries which are and will remain easily identifiable;
(b) any local ties which would be broken by the fixing of any particular boundary."

Those two criteria are clear. It is clear that, having first of all considered whether the number of electors can be got as equal as possible, the Boundary Commission is obliged also to consider these other criteria, that is that the boundaries must be easily identifiable—can be seen on the ground and identified reasonably easily—and that local ties should not be broken.
The trouble arises because in a number of cases already—and the Boundary Commission is only part of the way through its work—there have been hotly-disputed changes of boundaries suggested by the Commission which have been taken to the stage of a public inquiry. Throughout such cases it has been clear that those concerned have taken equality of numbers as the be-all and end-all of the consideration. When they have been challenged and asked to take into account the other two criteria they have listened quietly enough but have always brushed representations to one side and said "We cannot take account of these things because they put the equality of numbers consideration wrong." The balance of this has been wrongly interpreted and wrongly carried out by the Commission.
I have in my constituency a good example of this, into which I will not go in detail because the matter is still under consideration and because there has been an inquiry held by a Mr. Smith, who came to Ayr about three weeks ago. Various people made representations to him and I am sure that he will do his utmost to give the matter the fairest possible consideration. This case is a typical example of the sort of problem that is cropping up all over Scotland. It concerns the proposal to transfer the Kincaidstone housing scheme from the Alloway electoral division in Ayr to another electoral division—the Prestwick and Coyle Bank electoral division.
Anyone who knows the area will know that there is no community of interest whatever between the Kincaidstone housing scheme and the Prestwick area, which is at the opposite end of the conurbation and has no natural links with it. The two would make a most unhomogeneous local government area. Yet I fear, as has happened in other cases, that once again we shall be told that it is accepted that there is no community of interest, that the areas do not make a single area, but nevertheless, because the numbers must be equalised, the other two criteria are to be brushed aside.
Here is an ideal opportunity, in this schedule, to make a minor amendment on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire, although I would not want to stick to it rigidly. We ought to make clear to the Boundary Commission that of course it must still take numbers into account, but that it must also take into account the fact that where community of interest is being broken up it has the right—indeed, the duty—on some occasions to make numbers play a less dominant role, and to recognise the interests of ordinary people in their areas. I hope very much that the Minister will consider whether anything can be done at this stage along those lines.
The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire has been concerned with another case, which I happen to know of myself because it is near my own home. There was an inquiry which again found flatly in contradiction to the wishes of the local people. Here again, the arguments were put extremely effectively. To a degree the report indicates this. The points were

well taken. Yet once again, notwithstanding all these well-put arguments, the matter of equality of numbers was held to be of overriding importance.
I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman's proposed amendment is not in the new schedule. I certainly feel that people in many parts of Scotland want some reassurance that this legislation will be operated in the way that was intended—in other words, that all these criteria will be taken into account and that all of them will be given weight, even if some are given more weight than others. That is not happening at the moment, and it is contrary to justice and contrary to what was intended, and the Government, with great respect, ought to do something about putting it right. I very much hope that, even at this stage, they will consider that the schedule is a suitable place in which to do it.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I congratulate the Government on tabling these amendments. I think it is very right and proper that they should try to make accommodation for the celebration of May Day, because it is a great Labour festival, and many working people and their families quite rightly celebrate it. It is therefore right, because it is a public holiday, that people should also be given every facility to cast their vote, and I congratulate the Government on changing the local election voting day to take into account the celebration of May Day.
The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) mentioned the Local Government Boundary Commission. It is a great pity that the Government, hi tabling the amendment—which is an attempt to tidy up the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967—did not go one step further and try to define more clearly the role of the Commission.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a case in his own constituency. I shall refer briefly to two cases in my constiuency, one of which concerns the village of Gargunnock. I know that the hon. Gentleman is not only pleased to represent Ayr in this place but is also very proud to be a constituent of mine. I speak on behalf of him and his neighbours in Gargunnock when I say that many of them are astounded by the proposals brought forward by the Local


Government Boundary Commission concerning boundary review.
I have had representations not only from the community council in Gargunnock but from the communities in Denny and Dunipace in my constieuency, which are likewise annoyed that the Local Government Boundary Commission seems to be putting far too much emphasis on numerical parity, rather than on trying to retain community and geographical links which have existed for many years.
6.45 p.m.
This matter has nothing at all to do with party politics or with gerrymandering on party political lines. Indeed, the proposal concerning Gargunnock, roughly speaking, is to lump it in along with part of the burgh of Stirling. Gargunnock, of course, is quite different in character, being a very small rural village, Stirling having been a large burgh before local government reorganisation. I do not need to go into detail on this because my hon. Friend the Minister realises the differences that exist between a large town and a small rural village in matters such as transport, communications, shopping facilities, occupations and the general way of life.
Similarly, before local government reorganisation, Denny and Dunipace were one burgh, with their own town council, their own provost, and so on. Since local government reorganisation, they have had, up till now, one regional councillor looking after their interests. Now the proposal is to split the burgh between two regional electoral divisions. Most of the township will come within one electoral division, but the rest of Denny and Dunipace will be hived off to come into another part. This, to my mind, is splitting up naturally existing communities which are quite happy with the representation that they have, and where the people realise that there are more important things in life than parity of numbers.
I have previously taken up this matter with the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I have received several replies from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing). I am sorry that he is not here, because I am not satisfied with the replies that I have received. The people of Gargunnock asked for a ministerial visit

and for a local inquiry to be conducted within the village, or even in the neighbouring village of Kippen, which is also affected, but there was no ministerial visit and no local inquiry, in the strict sense. I was told that certainly the Boundary Commission took into account the appeal against the decision, and I was also told that there was a local inquiry. But where was it held? It was held at the regional offices in Stirling.
It is about time that the faceless people on the Boundary Commission started to go out to meet the real people, instead of just going to council offices in fairly big towns, such as Stirling. Why should not they go out to places such as Gargunnock to meet the hon. Member for Ayr and his neighbours? Why on earth should they not go out to Kippen and meet my constituents, to see what they think, instead of just listening to the views of a few officials and others at the offices in Stirling?
There are already many situations, certainly at the level of central government, where we do not have strict parity of numbers or anything like it. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) is not here, because his is the most obvious example of a constituency which is, I think, in numerical terms less than a third of the size of, for example, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy—the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie). I do not suggest that that in itself is unjust. This House has tolerated it, and the Parliamentary Boundary Commission has tolerated it, for many years because account was taken of the special difficulties of representing remote rural areas and islands areas. But if this principle is accepted in regard to parliamentary boundaries, why should it not be extended also to local government boundaries?
I am not talking only of Gargunnock. The regional councillor, whoever it is, who is elected in the future to represent the area, will be representing other communities, too. He or she will have to get round to all of them and try to look after the diversity of interests which exists in each.
I speak as a Member for what is basically a rural constituency. It is far more difficult in some respects to represent a rural constituency, consisting of many


villages and townships, than it is to represent an urban area, where it is possible to get round the place in a much shorter time.
I am disappointed that the Government have not come forward with an alternative proposal in this new schedule, and I hope that they will put forward firm guidance to the Boundary Commission, because I am convinced that although its members may be full of good intentions, they are sitting with the voters' rolls before them, counting numbers and saying to themselves "Here is a list of people. Let us shift them into another division so that we can have X voters—the same, give or take a few percentage points, as we have in the neighbouring division."
It is about time that these people were told by the Secretary of State that there are other considerations of which account should be taken. Schedule 6 of the 1973 Act lays down that other interests such as geographical interests should be taken into account and that numerical considerations are not the only criteria. It appears from the ministerial replies that I have had so far that the Boundary Commission thinks that the be-all and end-all of its job is to get equality of numbers, whereas to my mind—and I am sure even to the Minister's mind—people are far more important than mere numbers.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I hope that the Minister will try to give some serious answers to the important questions which have been put to him. He has no excuse. This is a clause on which the Government were defeated in Committee. The voting on that occasion was eight to five, partly because of the failure on the part of Labour supporters to attend, which does not surprise us, and partly because as usual the Conservatives were all present and we had the assistance of the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick), who believed that our case was just. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will not treat this matter flippantly.
Secondly, the Minister has no excuse when one bears in mind the back-up that he has on this occasion. I am not referring to his ministerial colleagues, because they are not here. However, on this occasion we see no fewer than nine advisers available to the Government. I

have never known an occasion before when we have had nine experts available to assist a Minister on a matter of this kind.

Mr. Canavan: They are probably from the Boundary Commission.

Mr. Taylor: I do not think that they are from the Boundary Commission. But, wherever they are from, I have been doing a quick calculation and I have worked out that for the taxpayer, on fares alone, the advice available to the Minister has cost no less than £540. If one adds on accommodation allowances of at least another £140, one discovers that we are talking about a total of more than £700.
Bearing in mind the difficulty that people have in paying taxes in these days, I hope that the Minister realises that his reply should be a good one, partly because the Government were defeated in Committee and partly because we have available this strong body of advice. I hope that the Minister will explain why it was felt necessary to have quite so many advisers, bearing in mind the pressures on the Government about spending and also the cuts on essential services which have been brought in by the Minister—cuts on home help, and so on.
There are three matters with which the Minister must deal. First, he must respond to the genuine point put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) about the way in which the Local Government Boundary Commission has been operating. We have all been shocked by some of its actions.
The Minister will be aware that in my constituency there is a place called Sims-hill. It is divided in two under the new arrangements. If ever there was a community of interests, it occurs in this area. Some of the arrangements which have been made make nonsense from the point of view of the consumer.
The Minister will be aware that we should be thinking in terms of the consumer and the elector. Consumers and electors nowadays are probably more confused than ever before. They have been through a local government reorganisation. Some of them find difficulty in knowing under which district council area they come. They have had changes


in local government and parliamentary boundaries, and now we are to have further changes. Unless we can have some kind of community of interest within local government areas, we may destroy people's interest in and understanding of local government.
Secondly, the Minister must give some assessment of the matters that were raised in Committee about the effect on education of his proposals for the day of the election. We appreciate that this is not a matter that will arise every year, because the dates on which the first Monday and the first Tuesday in May fall will vary, but one of our major problems these days is truancy in our schools. In some areas it is becoming very serious. Has the Minister considered the effect of changing the day of local government elections from Tuesdays to Thursdays on schoolchildren's attendance at school, on the teachers, on the people who prepare school meals, and the rest of it?
The Minister will be aware that we have a holiday on a Monday for May Day. If we have local government elections on a Thursday, it means children being told to stay off school on the Monday and then, if their schools are being used as polling stations, to come back for the Tuesday and Wednesday, go away on the Thursday, and come back on the Friday. This makes nonsense by comparison with a situation in which we might have just two days off and three days at school.
Thirdly, the Minister is making a major change, which he has to justify. I wonder whether a major change of this kind makes sense when we have had so many changes and are to have as many elections as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) suggested. We hope that the Government's wretched Bill on devolution will be defeated in the referendum. I am sure that it will, because at the end of the day people in Scotland are sensible about matters of this kind. I see the Home Secretary smiling. He knows what is involved and what nonsense the proposal is. But there is no doubt that if we go ahead with the Government's plans we shall have elections on so many occasions that children will be off school a great deal and there will be a great deal of confusion.
The Minister must accept that to make a major change such as this needs some justification. The Minister has not done that to date. We defeated him in Committee and, if he does not give a more satisfactory answer today, we shall do it again. Once again he is not backed up by his colleagues. We do not know where all the Scottish Labour Members are these days. The Minister must give a more satisfactory answer. Unless he does, I give him fair warning that we shall once again throw out this silly proposal.
The Minister has no excuse. He has more advisers than I have ever known in my 13 years in the House of Commons and they have probably been brought here at more expense than any other deputation of this kind. The Minister was defeated in Committee. Let us have some justification for this very major change.

Mr. McElhone: I hope that I shall be forgiven for laughing at the efforts of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) to get over a simple difficulty. He has brought in home helps, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my nine advisers, and he has also attempted to calculate their subsistence. I warn the hon. Gentleman that he will not get much support from the Civil Service unions in the next election. They are big unions, and attacking civil servants who cannot reply for themselves is not advisable.
All this may not be relevant to the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, since you allowed the hon. Member for Cathcart to perambulate around all these matters, it is only fair to point out that of the nine advisers, two are trainees, and that as the Bill deals with valuations, boundaries, the Police Acts and many other subjects, it is a matter of wide-ranging interest. That is why the advisers are here. Incidentally, it is a tribute to the hon. Member for Cathcart that when my officials heard that he was to be involved in the Bill the whole of the Scottish Office was emptied.
I repeat the arguments only briefly, because I have made them all before. I would have thought that: the nice things that I have heard about anti-separation would have received a favourable response from the Conservatives. I would


have thought that the very fact that the business interests find this a suitable change would mean that it would find favour with the Conservative Party.
7.0 p.m.
The hon. Member for Cathcart talked about truancy. He must have some regard to the common sense of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. He knows and I know that the Convention is not a one-party organisation but consists of Conservative convenors as well as Labour convenors. As I have explained privately and publicly, its commonsense approach was that it would like it this way. The Convention has taken into consideration, as it normally does, the very wide-ranging interests which are involved in a change such as is proposed. Obviously, education and truancy were among them.
On Friday last I discussed with the Convention educational matters. I did not attempt to take advantage of the hon. Member for Cathcart by describing his criticisms of its views to the Conservative chairman there. But this is a request from the Convention. It meets the situation in the same way as in England, and I would have thought that it would find favour with the Conservative Party.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) made the same point, which will no doubt be reported in The Observer or Private Eye, or some other publication as an interesting piece of jargon coming across in the Committee. He talked about the different days and went so far as to suggest an election for each day of the week. I think that I am correctly reporting him. I cannot seriously accept the implication that if all the elections were held on a Thursday, for instance, the public would be confused about the kind of election in which they were voting. The hon. Member is seriously attacking the intelligence of the Scottish voter. Because apart from the fact that in normal circumstances there is usually a lengthy interval between elections, there will be a lot of Press publicity from the Conservative Central Office on elections.
The hon. Member is saying that the ordinary Scottish voter will be confused and will not understand what he is voting for. That is an insult to the intelligence

of the Scottish voter. I hope that that is reported to the electors of Edinburgh, North.
Not wishing to stray out of order, I should like to respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) on the subject of electoral boundaries. I would have thought that the Conservative Member who was most knowledgeable about electoral boundaries was the hon. Member for Ayr, who piloted the 1973 Bill, with the assistance of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), who, I think, took this clause through the House. My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire has had correspondence from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing)—who covered these things at the Scottish Office. He has said—I shall not say rightly—that he does not accept the answers, but he knows of a letter written to him on 7th March this year, when he raised this question and mentioned Mr. Clark of Gargunnock Community Council, of which one paragraph reads:
The Commission was set up by Parliament as an independent body
—I think that that point was certainly made very strongly during the passage of the 1973 Act—
to carry out these reviews. That being so, the Secretary of State has no locus to intervene in their work and could not advise the Commission on the interpretation of Schedule 6
—which the hon. Member for Ayr mentioned this evening. The letter continues:
When the Commission make their recommendations to the Secretary of State, he considers them carefully having regard to the statutory rules.

Mr. Jim Craigen: I wrote to the Secretary of State last year about this matter. In the light of the forthcoming devolution proposals, should we not just freeze these local government electoral boundary changes?

Mr. McElhone: It is a very attractive possibility, depending on what one's majority is and the type of seat that one has. I could not comment on that. I do not wish to do so.

Mr. Ian MacCormick: I think that the Minister ought to comment on


it. I had a proposal through the post today to the effect that the part of Oban in which I live should be treated as part of Argyll and Islay. The thing seems to be so mad as to be scarcely credible.

Mr. McElhone: I cannot blame the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick), because he was not here at the time. He might not be here very much longer in the future. Nevertheless, I should recall briefly—because there are several matters to be considered in the Bill—that the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns made the point when talking about an amendment moved by my right hon. Friend who is now Minister of State, Department of Energy—the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon)—during the passage of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill. The hon. Member said that he did not think that we should seek to limit the Commission in any way, as the amendment sought to do. He went on to say that he would prefer to have the Boundary Commission with as much discretion as possible, which is not all that great, anyway.
Hon. Members who were at that meeting and who discussed the amendment will know that the Commission is an independent and non-party body. I know the difficulties that my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire has. He has seven different district councils with which he has to deal as a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: Everybody seems to be having trouble with this boundary thing. I should like to join in and say that we in South Edinburgh are having trouble. I have written to the Secretary of State but have not had a reply yet.

Mr. McElhone: I shall not enter a defence, because of collective responsibility, that I am not responsible for that section of the Scottish Office. But perhaps I would meet the point, anyway. There is a lot of feeling about the question of boundaries. I assure the hon. Member for Ayr that I appreciate the concern felt by many communities that the boundaries that are drawn between different electoral areas do not coincide with natural boundaries between communities. It is extremely difficult to reconcile all conflicting interests in a task of this kind.
I would say only two things. In the first place, I remind the hon. Members concerned that when the Local Government Bill was debated in 1973 both sides of the House—it is important to stress that—laid great stress on the importance of the principle—which, after all, is fundamental to a democratic system—that within the area of any given democratically elected body every vote should as far as possible have equal weight, which means that the overriding principle in drawing up electoral boundaries is that all electoral areas should contain approximately the same number of voters. That was agreed by both sides of the House during the Committee stage of the 1973 Act.
Even the limited flexibility that the Act at present allows was criticised during the Committee stage of the Bill, and there was strong support from all parties for the principle that electoral boundaries should be decided by an independent local government boundary commission and that the rules under which it should operate should be laid down in as objective and precise a manner as possible. That is what was done. That was the Bill put forward by the Conservative Government of the day. These are the principles that the Boundary Commission has in accordance with the Act.

Mr. MacCormick: Would it not be the case that the Boundary Commission could do its work as well, assuming that things are quite well as they are, if he did not do anything at all to change things? It would still be overlooking what was happening.

Mr. McElhone: I appreciate the concern of the individual member, be he local councillor or Member of Parliament. Nevertheless, it was agreed by both sides of the House—and it was a Conservative Bill—that the body should be independent and non-political. One takes the chance when one has a non-political, non-party, independent body and says "We shall leave you the discretion" and at the same time one seeks to limit its discretion.

Mr. Younger: I desisted from interrupting the hon. Gentleman in order to give him the maximum chance to answer the points, but he has not begun to answer the point that I was making to him. It


may be that I put it badly. I have not suggested that anybody is political. I have not suggested that anybody has interfered with the Boundary Commission. I have not said that anything was wrong with the Bill put forward in 1973. What I have said is that the Government are not carrying out the Act as the House passed it in 1973. The Minister is coming back again and again to numbers. If it is true, why did the House put into the Bill the words
regard shall be had to … any local ties which will be broken by the fixing of any particular boundary."?
The House must have meant something by that. The Minister must say why he is apparently approving the Boundary Commission and totally ignoring something laid down in an Act of Parliament. That is not good enough.

Mr. McElhone: As a former Minister at the Scottish Office, the hon. Gentleman will know that he is making allegations about a wrong interpretation of the Act by the Boundary Commission and that there is a method for dealing with that. He well knows that method. It certainly does not fall within the new schedule that we are discussing.
As there seems to be a great deal of confusion, I shall try to explain the matter more fully, I hope, by again quoting from the letter sent by my fellow Under-Secretary—the hon. Member for Stirling, Grangemouth and Falkirk—to my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire. I was reluctant to do that, but in order to try to help hon. Members who have a very deep concern—it is blowing up from different parts of the House—perhaps I should quote the part of the letter that says:
Reports of reviews which have been considered so far, however, do not indicate that the Commission are executing their responsibilities other than in a manner fully consonant with the rules in Schedule 6.
That is a point that the hon. Member for Ayr is disputing. The letter goes on to say:
The requirement in paragraph 1(3)(6) of Schedule 6 to have regard to local ties in fixing boundaries is prefaced with the words 'Subject to sub-paragraph (2) above'. Since that sub-paragraph embodies the parity rule
—this is what is causing all the trouble tonight—

the Commission read the two provisions together as requiring them to have regard to local ties in fixing 'boundaries', so long as the electoral areas in question essentially comply with the primary rule relating to parity of electorate".
The hon. Member for Ayr must remember that this was the dominant point in the debate on that particular section of the Act and that he accepted it, as did hon. Members on both sides of the Committee on that Bill. I did not serve on that Committee. The hon. Member must accept that he accepted it. He was piloting the Bill through the House.
The letter goes on to say:
That approach is reinforced by the terms of paragraph 2 which allows a departure from parity where the Commission consider that there are special geographical circumstances present which make such a departure desirable. That particular provision was debated in the Scottish Standing Committee on 27th March 1973 (copy of relevant Hansard enclosed) when it was indicated that this relaxation of the parity rule was intended to be used where specially difficult geographical considerations were involved. It has been the aim of the Commission to depart from the parity rule only in a way consistent with the views expressed in Committee e.g. 'narrowly' (cols 1268 and 1269), 'very sparingly' (col 1270) and 'in only quite exceptional circumstances' (col 1273).
Finally, I should like to refer to the second point about the Boundary Commission being obliged to take careful account of local wishes. Where substantial objections have been raised to any of its proposals, it has normally been the practice to arrange a local hearing. This was done in the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire and the hon. Member for Ayr. In the latter case, the results are not, of course, yet known.
Therefore, the hon. Member for Ayr has a chance. On reflection, he may find that his anxieties are not as strong as they were. We have not had the final report on that matter because the Boundary Commission has still to report to the Secretary of State its proposals for the electoral divisions in the Strathclyde Region. But whatever happens, the hon. Member must bear in mind the value of sticking to objective rules in a matter of this kind so as to reduce the opportunity for criticism to be made either of the Boundary Commission or of the Secretary of State's final decision on its reports.
The possibilities of adjusting electoral boundaries to suit the interests of one political party must be obvious to everyone, and although I do not for a moment suggest that this has been part of the representation of any hon. Members, it is important to ensure that the opportunity for this kind of criticism does not arise.

Mr. Canavan: Despite what my hon. Friend said about the independence of the Commission, under the terms of the 1973 Act surely it would be permissible for the Secretary of State to advise the Boundary Commission that it should take more into account the significance of local community interests in setting the boundaries, rather than placing over-emphasis on numerical parity. Secondly, surely my hon. Friend could advise that when it comes to a local inquiry the matter should go to the place from which the opposition is coming.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister replies to that question, I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that we are getting very wide of what we are meant to be discussing, which is a new clause and certain minor amendments. We seem to be getting dangerously close to discussing an amendment to a schedule that was not selected.

Mr. McElhone: I am grateful to you for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the matter was raised in speeches made by the hon. Member for Ayr and by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire, and to be helpful to the House I responded on those matters.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am in no way criticising the Minister, who had to defend himself. If anything, the Chair has been rather lax. The Chair had better not indulge in that any further.

Mr. McElhone: If that is so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a most unusual position for the Chair, and it has never happened previously.

7.15 p.m.

I conclude by saying that to try to be helpful, I shall convey the views expressed by my hon. Friends, and certainly those of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen), and the concern expressed by other hon. Members, to my right hon. Friend the

Secretary of State. Although the debate has strayed somewhat from the original new clause and the amendment that we are discussing, I hope that in that spirit Opposition Members will accept the good advice of COSLA—which considered the educational aspects—of business interests and all the other interests. I hope they will reflect upon their earlier vote in Committee, and will accept the new clause and the amendment.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Member at least give me the assurance that he will consult the teachers' associations about this matter?

Mr. McElhone: I shall be delighted to do that. I shall be addressing the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association very soon. I am in regular consultation with the Education Institute for Scotland and others. I shall consult and report back to the hon. Member what has been said.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 1

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 6 OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1975

7.15 p.m.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 16, at end insert—
'3(A) An order under this section which provides for the matters described in subsection (3) above shall be accompanied by a report setting out the considerations which led the Secretary of State to make such provision'.
This amendment is somewhat in the nature of a probing amendment and has been moved in order to avoid regional bias. After all, when an order is made under this section—
applying to any lands and heritages or any class or description of such lands and heritages may provide for determining a ratable value or aggregate amount by the application of different methods of valuation; apportioning a ratable value or aggregate amount by the application of different manners of apportionment".
—it could be that there might be regional bias in certain cases. Perhaps in certain circumstances this could be justified.
However, I cannot help believing that there could be no harm in the Secretary of State producing an accompanying report setting out the considerations that


led him to make such a provision and giving his reasons for it. It seems eminently reasonable. After all, if the Secretary of State is acting unreasonably, this will come out. But if he is acting reasonably—as no doubt the Minister will claim—there would be no possible harm in his setting out his reasons.

Mr. McElhone: Section 6(3) of the 1975 Act as substituted by Clause 1 of the Bill allows the Secretary of State to use different methods of valuation and apportionment for different parts of the property of an undertaking in order to take account of local circumstances. The purpose of this flexibility is to ensure that the valuations are fair to the ratepayers of any particular area as well as to the undertaking. The hon. Member's amendment is designed to require the Secretary of State, when he makes use of this flexibility, to make a special report to Parliament when he seeks its approval to the order giving effect to this arrangement.
I can understand why the hon. Member has put down the amendment but I hope that I can convince him that he should not press it. It will be in the interests of all concerned and particularly of the local authorities and the ratepayers that this particular power to make flexible arrangements should be freely used.
When the draft order implementing such arrangements is brought to the House it will be necessary for the Secretary of State to explain to the House why and in what way he has used all the powers in the section. To pick out this particular power for a special report would imply that its use should be exceptional and this might inhibit Governments, of whatever colour, from using it. This would be a great pity because I am sure that there would be circumstances in which it would be the only way of getting a fair valuation and distribution of valuation. It will be of benefit to ratepayers generally.
As I have made clear, the Secretary of State will have to explain to the House why and in which way he has used the powers in question. He will do this on an affirmative order. This is a change from previous valuation legislation which has always been subject to a negative resolution. This is a step forward. Any

hon. Member can question the Secretary of State about the way in which he arrived at his valuation.
That is as far as we can go to meeting the wishes of the electors in such matters. I hope that the hon. Member will take the assurances that I am giving because I do assure him that the Secretary of State will be answerable to the House.

Mr. Iain Sproat: The Minister is being uncharacteristically reticent with the House tonight. We have heard the feeble answer which he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). I hope that he will be a little more forthcoming on this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) has asked that a special report be made. The Minister says that the Secretary of State will come to the House and explain everything anyway. If that is so, why is he not prepared to make a special report? That is all that my hon. Friend is asking for. The Minister of State has nine advisers in the box who are costing the taxpayers and ratepayers £700. Surely they could draft a report to show the ratepayers that they are being treated fairly.
No doubt my hon. Friend will seek to divide the House on this matter if the Minister is not more forthcoming. I do hope that the Minister will guarantee that the Secretary of State will make such a report. It is little more of a requirement than a speech to the House, but it will make everything rather more open, public and reassuring to ratepayers.

Mr. McElhone: I do not know why the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) has committed political harikiri with another swingeing attack on civil servants. He is bringing down more odium on his own head at the next election. There are many Civil Service voters in his constituency and he is committing political suicide by attacking people in the Box who cannot answer back. Still, there is no reason why I should worry too much about that. It will certainly increase the number of Labour Members.
In previous legislation under Conservative Governments the House had a


chance to use only the negative resolution procedure, which gave little or no opportunity to individual Members to question the Secretary of State. We are bending over backwards by introducing the affirmative resolution, to make the procedure as democratic as possible for the individual constituency Member to question the Secretary of State. That is as far as democracy allows the House to go, and it is a very pertinent way of doing things. At the same time it means that we are concerned that we should not be too bureaucratic in Government.
If the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South wants me to reduce the number of civil servants who come to this House and at the same time create more and more reports it will cause more and more concern for the Secretary of State of the day. It may be that by some mischance the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South himself will one day be Secretary of State for Scotland. I would not want to inhibit him, when he already has a heavy burden to carry, and make his job more difficult by creating voluminous reports that must be made to the House. If the Secretary of State comes to the House and explains his position in a clear and candid way that should be sufficient for anyone. Perhaps the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South will reflect on some of the things that he said about civil servants before it is too late.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In the light of the Minister's answer I shall not press the amendment to a vote at this stage. However, if the Secretary of State abuses the power by showing an unreasonable regional bias, I shall seek to return to the matter at a later date. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 23, at end insert—
'(4A) In making an order under this section the Secretary of State shall show that payments in lieu of rates to be made by certain public utilities and bodies and by certain undertakings shall increase or decrease in proportion to the general level of rates paid by industry in Scotland.'
This amendment is rather similar to that which we have just discussed. Our object is to try to specify the information that might be available to the House when considering the order.
I advise the Minister that he does not have a full picture about the attitude on this Bench towards the Civil Service. I am the Member for Edinburgh, North and I have in my constituency St. Andrew's House and New St. Andrew's House. I do not presume to know how those civil servants vote any more than the Minister does, but I would not join in any criticism which he thought came from this side of the House. However I think that it was right for my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) to point out that the Minister seems to require an enormous amount of backing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. We have been over this ground far too much. The question of the Box does not enter into the realms of the amendments that we are discussing in the House.

Mr. Fletcher: The object of this amendment, like the previous one, is to deal with the provision of information. I do not think that it is enough for the Minister to say that we can wait and see what the Secretary of State tells the House when he moves the order. There are very important aspects of it that could be just as easily laid before the House in a schedule or some other form of advice to Members in advance, giving the main facts and figures.
It is important to have some geographical understanding of how the weighting will affect the rates themselves. We think that it is desirable to have a comparison between the increase or decrease or the payment in lieu of rates made by public undertakings on the one hand, and the general level of rates paid by industry on the other.
We have had many references to the effect of this Bill on industry. The biggest effect is the cost of the rates themselves. Rates are a very big charge on industry. It is very important that people who are responsible in industry in Scotland should know what they are paying and what public undertakings are paying so that the comparison may be judged.
This formula arrangement is extremely complex. It does not follow that the results of the final sums paid in lieu of rates should be secret. They should be known well in advance so that they can be compared with the general level of rating with a view to trying to establish in


advance, and provide this information, which is in the best interests of all concerned.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Younger: It is desirable that the Minister accept this amendment and I hope that he will do so.
There has never been a time when public confidence in the rating system has been much lower than it now is. If it could be laid down that the rating levels of public utilities had to be demonstrated by the Secretary of State to bear a proper proportion to the general level of rates paid by industry, that would go some way to overcome the extreme concern felt by many people about the rating system and its effect on industrial and commercial property.
Hon. Members may know from earlier exchanges that one area that is particularly badly affected is the Kyle and Carrick District in my constituency. The rating revaluations in that district are having the most drastic effect on householders and on commercial and industrial premises. It appears from the most careful calculations we can make on the evidence available that the valuations placed on subjects in this area are being deliberately increased by a higher proportion than those in other areas in the regions. I am glad to see present the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) because his area is most seriously affected.
I accept that the principles involved in assessing rateable values are objective, laid down in the rating and valuation legislation, and must be carried out by assessors in accordance with that legislation. However, I ask the Minister to give special consideration to the way in which this system works out on the ground.
If rateable value in the Strathclyde Region as a whole rises by about 3·1 times the previous figure, the ratepayer, be he industrial or commercial, will end up by paying about the same amount of rates as he pays now, but the average of rates regionally in terms of rate valuations communicated to me in my constituency in the past few weeks appears to be very much in excess of the 3·1 times increase, which is the norm for Strathclyde as a whole.
The effect of revaluation, assuming that Strathclyde Region as a whole

asked the ratepayers for no more than the same amount of money as last year, will result in Kyle and Carrick District contributing over £1·5 million more to the general pool of rates in the region compared with the previous year. This is no small matter. It is equivalent to no less than 6½p in the pound on the new rateable values. This will be an extremely serious matter for many commercial and industrial premises.
I am not suggesting that the system itself is wrong. I am suggesting that the way in which the system works out for people in my area, in the area of Cuninghame district, and also, I believe, in the Argyll district, is not fair to those on the ground.
I shall not give examples of domestic rate valuations because that would not be in order. We are now discussing industrial rating values as affecting public utilities. But, in passing, I shall mention to the Minister the fact that there is great concern among domestic ratepayers, and I shall seek another opportunity as soon as I can to make their case for them.
If we look purely at the situation of non-domestic ratepayers, it will be seen that we have some incredible examples. I give only one because time prevents my going into too much detail. I must add that I have written to the Secretary of State about every case which I have had drawn to my attention. There is one example that should alert the Minister to the fact that things are going badly wrong in the revaluations. The example to which I refer is not a domestic but a commercial premises. These premises are in Ayr High Street and were revalued last year because there was an addition to the premises. In other words, they had to be revalued and a fresh rateable value had to be made. Therefore, the previous valuation must be relatively up to date and should have been completely up to date last year, only a year ago.
The valuation arrived at for those premises last year was £870. This year the new valuation is £7,550. This is an alarming figure. There is no difference in the premises since last year—not a brick has been added. It was revalued last year as I have said, and must have been correct then. This raises the amount paid by those commercial premises in Ayr High Street from a figure of £1,350 last


year to £3,490 this year. Unless something odd has gone wrong with my interpretation of the rating and valuation legislation, there is no way in which that could be regarded as a lair representation of a change in value since a year ago.
I hope that the Minister will take it from me that there is the most extreme concern among all my constituents at the way in which revaluations are affecting our area. We do not believe that it is fair as against other areas. If there is a general policy of increasing valuations in Kyle and Carrick by more than the increase in other districts, all I can say is that this is not in tune with the rating and valuation legislation, as I understand it. We do not think there is any legitimate or sensible reason why this system should not be fair on everybody.
If the rating and valuation legislation were properly carried out on previous occasions, we must accept that at that time those valuations were reasonably fair and that the new valuations were carried out on the same criteria. I see no reason why one area should be singled out for a special policy involving the raising of valuations as a whole. That, however, is the effect of the figures I have given.
I do not expect the Minister to answer my questions off the cuff tonight, but I certainly hope that he will seriously examine the amendment. It will at least ensure that when the rating of public utilities comes to be considered in the course of revaluation, they will be made to move up pro rata with increases in industrial valuations. In my area there would be some consolation if public utilities were to have their valuations raised by the same amount because that would slightly ease the burden of other ratepayers in the area.
I hope that the Minister will carefully examine these points because the answer given to our representations by Lord Kirkhill was totally unsatisfactory because it fell back on existing rating and valuation law, which we accept. My case is that this area is being singled out for unfair treatment and is deliberately suffering increased valuations because somebody has decided that those valuations were not high enough. This is grossly unfair and the Minister must intervene to see that this practice is implemented

fairly. If this is not done, the rating system in my area will fall into disrepute.

Mr. MacCormick: Until I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), I did not intend to intervene in this debate. However, in the light of his remarks I wish to add one or two things.
I had the privilege of speaking in the Second Reading debate on the Inner Urban Areas Bill and I also serve on the Standing Committee. The point I seek to make is that people in the rural areas should not be penalised. For example, those in the Strathclyde Region should not be hit in trying to make up for the lack of facilities in an inner urban area such as Glasgow. I am firmly convinced that if the current revaluation goes through, commercial and business expansion in rural areas such as Argyll will be actively inhibited.

Mr. Canavan: Will the hon. Gentleman not be fair and admit that his rural area has had certain advantages since it came under the Labour administration in Strathclyde, including travel card schemes for pensioners and the disabled and many other social benefits that it did not get under the Tory regime in Argyll?

Mr. MacCormick: There must be many areas in Strathclyde that have benefited equally from such advantages, or have turned down such advantages when offered, but one of the basic concepts of democracy is that there should be no taxation without representation and we in Argyll, with only five regional councillors, are not being allowed to say how the money should be raised and how it should be spent.
I am not satisfied that we should sit back and say that this situation is developing, but not do anything about it. As the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) said during Question Time, wages and salaries are pegged to a 10 per cent. increase while people in my constituency and many others in the Strathclyde region are faced with rate increases vastly in excess of 10 per cent.

Mr. McElhone: The speeches of the hon. Members for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) have nothing to do with the Bill. They were referring to asessors' valuations, but the Bill deals with public utilities.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure an explicit link between the level of rates paid by public utilities and industry in general. The effect is difficult to gauge because of a fundamental misconception of one of the purposes of the revised Section 6: when a formula valuation is prescribed, any existing provisions for payments in lieu of rates under Part V of the Local Government Act 1948 will be repealed. In practice, the amendment would therefore be of no effect.
The essential purpose of valuation, whether by formula or by orthodox methods, is to produce a scale of rateable values which will fairly and objectively spread the rates burden. If a property is extended or in part demolished, its value will increase or fall accordingly. The value of each property is ascertained separately and there is no reason for the improvement or extension of one property to have a direct bearing on the value of any other.
It would therefore be objectionable to create for formula subjects a direct link of this kind. One formula-valued undertaking may be in a period of rapid expansion and the imposition of a link with industry in general would bring about under-assessment. Another undertaking may be contracting and its value could not fairly be tied to the general run of industry.
What is needed is not the rigid and arbitrary link between formula subjects and others which the amendment is aimed at. It is far better to have the present scheme of Section 6, so that after full consultation the Secretary of State may lay a draft order before Parliament. The overall fairness of the proposed formula may then be a matter for debate in each House.
In order to try to be helpful to the hon. Members for Ayr and Argyll and to the public who may read our proceedings, may I point out that the law requires the assessors to value property, whether domestic or industrial, in their areas according to certain principles common to all areas and affords a right of appeal and complaint so that valuations may be challenged through the valuation appeal committees or the Lands Valuation Appeal Court. The hon. Member for

Ayr knows of the independence of assessors in Scotland and the only way to get redress is to make an appeal to the Court or a committee if no alleviation is granted on a direct appeal to the assessor. This is provided for and the amendment would have no effect.

Mr. Younger: I appreciate that that is the correct procedure for dealing with individuals who feel that their assessment is wrong, but what is one supposed to do when a whole area is subjected to a deliberate increase of rateable values? That is not provided for in legislation.

Mr. McElhone: This has nothing to do with the Bill which deals with formula valuations for public utilities. I strayed a little earlier to point out that assessors deal independently with industrial, domestic and commercial valuations for areas and for individuals. Areas or individuals have the opportunity to appeal first to the assessor and then to the valuation appeal committee or the Lands Valuation Appeal Court. The methods have been clearly set out, but this has nothing to do with the Bill.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Minister has not told the whole story and my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) was correct in what he said. The Minister rightly pointed out that the amendment might be defective because we are proposing payments in lieu of rates while the Bill includes a new proposal for the Secretary of State to prescribe by order total rateable values for public utilities. But we have been trying throughout the Bill's progress to get an indication from the Secretary of State about how he proposes to exercise this power in relation to electricity boards, water boards, British Rail and so on.
How will the amounts levied under the new system be parcelled out among local authorities? The Minister is wrong to say that the points raised by the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr have nothing to do with the Bill. They have a very great deal to do with it.
If the Secretary of State prescribes a substantial amount in rateable valuation of public utilities, it would reduce the rate burden of other ratepayers such as those in Argyll and Kyle and Carrick


who have been so harshly dealt with in the new revaluation. Their burden would not be so harsh if a high total rateable valuation were prescribed for public utilities.
We have been trying to get even the slightest indication of what the Secretary of State will have in his mind when he makes such an order. Does he intend that public utilities will carry a greater or lesser burden than they carry under the system of payments in lieu? Does he intend that the public utilities should carry an increased burden compared with industry?
Certain parts of public utilities are covered not by the formula valuation but by specific valuation. An electricity board shop is assessed like any other shop, but power stations and railway stations are assessed under a different system. The Secretary of State will be laying an order for them. We are entitled to an indication whether the Secretary of State thinks that the total amount paid by public utilities will increase or decrease compared with valuations generally or with industrial valuations or commercial valuations. The Minister must give us some such indication.
When we debate the orders, we shall presumably learn of the Secretary of State's intentions, but we have had so many distortions in the new revaluations that the Minister has a duty to give us some information about how the Secretary of State proposes to carry out the task that he is giving himself in the Bill.
The revaluation has meant changes. By and large, industry will pay a great deal more, and this could have a severe effect on jobs in Scotland. Commerce will have to pay a bit more, and this will create difficulties for shops in our cities. In particular, the revaluation has meant that people in Argyll and Kyle and Carrick will carry a larger total burden.
It is difficult to justify this, and the Minister has not tried. He rightly says that this is not a matter that we can debate here. It can be resolved only in valuation appeal committees or in the Lands Appeal Court. But it is difficult to understand how the case can be argued for a district under the existing system as opposed to individuals or streets.
The Minister must give us some idea of his intentions. As we are going to

determine a total rateable value, the amount fixed will affect every other ratepayer in Scotland—domestic, industrial and commercial. While we accept that our amendment may be defective drafting, we have tried to get some idea of the principles under which the Minister intends to operate. Can he give us that now or do we have to wait for the order?

Mr. McElhone: At the risk of being repetitive, I will try to help the Opposition on this complicated matter. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) asked in Committee whether the Government intended that the proportion of rates borne by the public utilities should be increased, decreased or left at the present figure of 4 per cent. of Scotland's total rateable value. He is on the same point now. The Government have none of those intentions. People are misunderstanding the Bill and the genuine concern about an assessor's valuation does not have an effect on the Bill.
The purpose of Clauses 1 to 3 and the various valuation provisions of successive Governments is to ensure that the public utilities bear their fair and proper share of the rate burden in relation to such factors as their revenue-earning capacity and capital investment in land, buildings and plant. It has been recognised by Parliament in a series of Acts over 20 years that it is not possible to achieve this by the normal process of a valuation by the local assessor.
The assets of these undertakings consist of a whole network of services covering all of Scotland. It is a practical impossibility to achieve a fair valuation on the normal basis. This is the reason for the formula valuation under which the Secretary of State undertakes to hold consultations. We consult the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other bodies that my right hon. Friend thinks appropriate. That was on the basis of an amendment accepted by the Government which was moved by Lord Campbell of Croy, a former Secretary of State for Scotland. All that Clause 1 does is make this system more flexible, so that the result is fairer to individual authorities.
The hon. Member for Cathcart also mentioned the budget speech of the treasurer of Kilmarnock and Loudoun


district. The treasurer was making a proper technical distinction between moneys that his council receives as a contribution in lieu of rates payable by the South of Scotland Electricity Board and British Railways under the provisions of Part V of the Local Government Act 1948 and the rates proper which would be payable if formula valuations were introduced for electricity and railways as Section 6 allows.
Working parties on the whole question of formula valuation are sitting at present and will be reporting very soon. The improved powers conferred by Clause 1 may then allow the making of an order to apply formula valuation to electricity and railway undertakings.
Contributions in lieu of rates will then cease and those undertakings will pay rates on the basis of those formula valuations which will have to be approved by the House. The treasurer was right in his description of what will happen, but the important thing that he did not say is that it has not happened yet.
There is one point that I must qualify, A treasurer often has to make assumptions—even guesses—about future income or expenditure, and I understand that for budgeting purposes the Kilmarnock and Loudoun treasurer might assume that the change to formula valuation will not greatly affect his council's income. One must make these assumptions when working on changing from the payment in lieu of rates system to the formula valuation, but all that I want to get across is that I understand the genuine concern—I say this as a constituency member—about assessors' valuations, but that the assessor is independent. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) will recognise that, as a former Minister.
Therefore, if there is disagreement about an assessor's valuations one can seek redress through the valuation appeal courts but not through this Bill.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I would try finally to press the Minister on this point. He has not answered the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) about which form the order will take. If we knew that, we might have some idea of how far to press the amendment. The Minister is making heavy weather of a simple question.
We understand both the difference between assessors and the formula system and the fact that the expression in the amendment "payment in lieu of rates" is incorrect and that it should be "payment as a result of the formula calculation" or words to that effect.
We know that at present an assessor's valuations compare domestic rates with industrial rates on a year-to-year basis. What we are asking for is similar comparisons for public undertakings. If the Minister had replied to my hon. Friend's simple and important point, we should have saved a lot of time.

Mr. McElhone: The order will specify the way in which the valuations fall and will be available before it is debated.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 5

POSTPONEMENT OF REPEAL OF BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) ACTS 1892 TO 1911 AND CERTAIN LOCAL STATUTORY PROVISIONS

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 7, line 10, leave out Clause 5.
This is one of the most important parts of the Bill because it deals with the Burgh Police Acts of Scotland, particularly that of 1892, which is still very much in force. I do not wish to go over the ground that we debated in Committee but it is strange that a working party was set up in 1972 as a result of the contemplated local government reorganisation and completed its report in 1976. Since then, a wide range of consultation has taken place and the findings were due to be implemented in 1979.
The Minister says that there will be further delay until no earlier than 1982. The question that we have put several times to him is, why? The reply that we get is totally unacceptable and should always be so regarded in the House. The reply is "We are waiting for the Assembly". That is no way for the Minister to act on a matter which, as he has said, is of considerable importance. When dealing with the consideration of principle in Committee, the Minister said:
the Burgh Police Acts and their equivalents among the local Acts still have an effect on


the life of the individual in Scotland. For example, the Act of 1892 is the source of powers to make byelaws on a wide range of matters, and the Acts give local authorities powers to issue licences covering a wide range of activities, both of which have a direct impact on the everyday life of the individual."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 21st February 1978; c. 4.]
With those words—they are the Minister's words in the debate on principle—the Minister made it clear that we are dealing with some important matters.
The hon. Gentleman has given no satisfactory reason for not going ahead with the original intention and carrying out implementation in 1979 rather than postponing it to 1982. Unless he can bring forward some new reason tonight for this unnecessary delay, and unless he can explain why the consultations that started in 1976 have to go on for six years, I am sure that the House will realise that we have no option but to press harder on this issue.

Mr. McElhone: The Burgh Police Acts comprise a vast volume of complex legislation, much of it seriously out of date, some of it superseded by more modern legislation but a great deal still in force and regularly relied upon by local authorities and the police for the regulation of many every day matters of civic government. There is an urgent need for it to be completely replaced by more modern legislation designed to suit present day conditions, but the working party which examined these provisions took nearly four years to produce a comprehensive report and this has been the subject of further examination and comment by local authorities and other interested persons and bodies. In addition, the Burgh Police Acts did not apply in the four former cities which, therefore, had their own comprehensive local legislation covering the same matters, and these also require to be replaced.
The Burgh Police Acts deal with a wide range of matters including licensing and the making of byelaws, regulation of certain building, safety and public health matters, a number of criminal offences including offences with a sexual connotation and suspicious conduct, and such miscellaneous matters as the regulation of markets, the control of activities on the seashore, the provision of clocks in

public places, the naming of streets and numbering of houses.
The new provisions, which will be needed to replace all this legislation, will require at least one and probably two major Bills. It is likely to be most convenient to deal with some provisions of the Burgh Police Acts which deal with roads and streets in a separate roads Bill. The main civic government Bill is likely to require upwards of 200 clauses and will consequently make heavy demands on parliamentary time. Even if it had been possible from an earlier stage to take quicker steps to prepare such a Bill—

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Another excuse.

Mr. McElhone: It is a better excuse than the one to which the hon. Gentleman keeps referring about waiting for Assembly.
Even if it had been possible from an earlier stage to take quicker steps to prepare such a Bill, there would not now be time for it to be drafted and enacted before the date when the Burgh Police Acts will automatically expire. To allow them to expire—I hope that the Opposition will bear in mind that that is the effect of the amendment, which would cause chaos in local government—before replacement legislation had been enacted would leave a serious gap in the powers available to local authorities and the police and would seriously undermine the effective carrying on of municipal government throughout Scotland.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman has been wagging his finger from the Government Dispatch Box and suggesting that the result of the amendment would be extremely damaging. At least it has had the result of flushing out the true reason. I do not know whether the reason has been thought out in the past week or so, but it would have assisted in Committee and at the beginning of our consideration of the Bill, if the Minister had admitted from the beginning that there was no Government legislative time to cope with these matters.

Mr. McElhone: It is a point that is well made to say that we were in Committee for only a hour. During that time not one Opposition Member raised


any question on Clause 5. It does not do at this stage to go back, as it were, and to produce substantial opposition. One or two of my colleagues were missing, I accept. One was ill and two had travel difficulties.
Apart from this perfectly genuine need for more time to produce a highly complicated Bill which, it is to be hoped, will last for at least as long as its predecessor, the Government consider it right that since all these matters are of strictly local application and will fall within the powers of the Scottish Assembly, the task of enacting the new civic code should, if possible, be carried out by the Assembly. This would be exactly the sort of task for which the Assembly should be well fitted and able to discharge. Since the Government think it right to set up a Scottish Assembly, it would clearly be illogical for Parliament to occupy itself by passing new, complicated and detailed legislation concerned entirely with local Scottish matters, immediately before the Assembly were set up. But whether such legislation is eventually enacted by the Assembly or by Parliament, the extension of the time available for its preparation and debate until the end of 1982 is absolutely essential.
As Opposition Members, especially the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), are keen to point out the interests of the police, I hope that they will take cognisance of what I have said and will bear in mind the difficulties that would ensue for the police and local authorities if the amendment were passed.

Sir John Gilmour: Having heard the debate, I should probably come down on the side of the Minister and say that it would not be a good thing to take out this part of the Bill, especially as I sought to hang a new clause on the provisions of Clause 5 to deal with the problem of stray dogs that concerns my part of the country. As the Minister has said, there are provisions in the Acts that the cities have that give them full powers, but I do not think that the rest of Scotland has the necessary powers for dealing, for instance, with stray dogs.
When the new 200-clause Bill sees the light of day and is debated, whether in the Assembly or in the House, I hope that the Minister will ensure that proper meas-

ures are taken to ensure that stray dogs are dealt with in an appropriate manner. I should make it clear that I am not against dogs. I am against those who do not look after them. I have three dogs, and I should be in great trouble if I were in any way to give the impression that I am against dogs. I am not against them but against those who allow them to stray.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) has raised an important point about dogs. He has said that he has three dogs. I do not know whether he lives near me, but many dogs seem to congregate outside my house.
The Minister has made an important contribution to the debate. Those who are wondering what the Assembly is to do and those who are considering leaving this place to go to the Scottish Assembly thinking that they will be handling important matters such as jobs and the economy, will now realise the job that the Government have in store for them—a 200-clause Bill dealing with stray dogs, the numbering of streets and various other minor matters.
I am somewhat encouraged by what the Minister had to say. He thinks that the proposed Assembly will be well fitted to go ahead and consider these minor matters. In view of what he has said, we do not want to try to stop the consultation that is taking place. I think that he said that it will take six years and that he wants to make provision for an extra two years. To that extent we do not want to push the amendment.
I am sure the Secretary of State for the Home Department is very much interested in the point that I am about to make as it raises an important issue affecting home affairs legislation that passes through the House. Sometimes we are concerned about important issues. We pass legislation and think that thereby action will be taken.
The Minister is well aware that there is great concern about pornography—for example, the sale of pornographic literature. We have passed laws in the House of Commons to try to ensure that the strictest penalties are imposed on those who sell such pornography. There are provisions for enormous fines and substantial gaol sentences. But we frequently find that, when it comes to prosecuting


people for the sale of hard pornography, such prosecutions are brought under local legislation as outlined in the clause and to that extent maximum fines of perhaps £20 are imposed. Many people engaged in this filthy trade regard that as normal trading expenses.
I hope that in asking us to continue the old Burgh Police Acts for another three years, the Minister will bear in mind that the actions of the House of Commons in bringing in what it regards as tough penalties for serious crimes are being undermined by prosecutions brought not under Acts of Parliament, but under old local Acts which provide for limited fines and have no effective deterrent result.
This is a matter of which I am certainly well aware in the City of Glasgow. I believe that the Minister must also be aware that, although we have passed laws in the House of Commons in an attempt to stamp out the sale of hard pornography, in Glasgow and in other cities in Scotland these pornographic shops continue to operate, sales of pornography go ahead and a great deal of money is made. Parliament wanted to stamp out that trade. But, because prosecutions take place under local legislation which provides for only limited fines, the trade continues to flourish.
The Minister has put forward a good argument against the amendment. However, I hope that he will bear in mind that the mere existence of the Burgh Police Acts and other local Acts can undermine the work that we are doing in the House

of Commons in an attempt to stamp out practices to which we are all opposed.

Mr. McElhone: I share very few views with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), but I share his view on child pornography or any other kind of pornography. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have strong views on that matter, especially in our native city. I shall bear in mind and convey to my right hon. Friend what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

New Schedule

MINOR AMENDMENTS

The Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 (c.86)

1. In section 57(1) (provisions as to byelaws), for the words "201" there shall be substituted the words "202".

The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (c.65)

2. In section 8 (day of ordinary election), for the word "Tuesday" there shall be substituted the word "Thursday".

3. In section 125(1) (school and college councils), for the word "control" there shall be substituted the word "management".

4. In section 126 (disqualification for membership of education committees, etc.) for the words "127(2)" there shall be substituted the words "125(4)".—[Mr. McElhone.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time and added to the Bill.

Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

PREVENTION OF TERRORISM

8.13 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 23rd February, be approved.
The purpose of the order is to continue in operation for a further period of 12 months the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976, which is due to lapse, unless renewed, on 24th March.
In accordance with past practice, I shall give an account of the extent to which the Act has been used in the past year. I begin with a statistical report showing the use made of the Act up to 1st March and the cumulative statistics since 1974. Therefore, the figures will be twofold.
First, I deal with exclusion orders made under Part II of the 1976 Act. Under these powers, I may cause a person to be removed from this country. I can do that only where I am satisfied that someone is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or is attempting or may attempt to enter the country for that purpose. That is the strict test laid down in the Act.
My predecessor and I have made 119 exclusion orders in total, 24 of which have been made since last year's debate.
All persons against whom exclusion orders are made have the opportunity, under Section 7 of the 1976 Act, to make representations to an independent adviser. In this connection, 22 people in total—three in the last year—against whom orders have been made have made representations against the orders, and six of the 22 orders have been revoked. Of the three people who made representations this year, I enforced one order and revoked another.
A total of 104 people—23 in the last year—have been removed. Of those, 80 in total—22 in the last year—have been removed to Northern Ireland and 24 in total—one in the last year—have been removed to the Republic of Ireland.
It will be appropriate here, since I have been describing the use which has been made of the advisers, to place on record my gratitude to the two advisers, Lord Alport and Mr. Ronald Waterhouse, QC. The latter has stood down from this task following his appointment as a High Court judge.
I recognise, though I do not share, the feelings of those in Northern Ireland who may not welcome back there people excluded from Great Britain because I believe them to be terrorists. But I remind the House of the change made in the 1976 Act. That is the change commonly known as "reciprocity". In Section 5 of the 1976 Act, provision is made for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to exclude from Northern Ireland to Great Britain a person with connections here who satisfies the criteria for exclusion. As the purpose of these renewal debates is to give as much information as possible, I point out that this power has not yet been used. The exclusion order power is one of the main powers which it falls to me as Secretary of State to exercise.
The most significant of the powers that the Act gives to the police is in Section 12. That enables the police to detain a person who is reasonably suspected either of having committed an offence under the Act or of being concerned in terrorism.
The police have power to hold on their own authority for up to 48 hours. If they think that a further period is necessary for their inquiries, they may ask me to extend the period of detention for up to another five days.
The police have detained a total of 939 people—143 during the last year—under Section 12. In 277 cases—27 during the last year—my predecessor and I authorised extensions of detention. No police applications for extension of detention have so far been refused.
I have explained in the past the careful arrangements which have been made for dealing with these cases. I assure the House that these arrangements remain as stringent as they have always been.
There is an office at New Scotland Yard served jointly by Metropolitan Police officers and officers from other forces. That office has developed a great deal of expertise in these matters, thus enabling consistent standards or criteria


to be maintained. My predecessor was aware of the office at New Scotland Yard.
When I became Secretary of State, one of the first things that I did was to make clear how I saw the use of the power in Section 12. I believe that is the major reason why cases do not come forward to me. Cases do not come to me if it is felt that, on the basis on which I look at these matters, I should disapprove of them.
I personally see all applications for extensions of detention, unless there are unforeseen circumstances—for example, if a case arises at short notice when I am away. In that event, such a case would be dealt with by the Minister of State. But, for the record, I saw every extension of detention case this year. If for some reason I am not available, my Home Office colleague will give a decision, but it will come to me immediately on my return. It is extremely rare for me not to be available or to be got at somewhere in the country.
The other main powers available to the police relate to port control.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My right hon. Friend has given us the figures for those who were detained under these powers during the last 12 months. Will he tell us how many during the last 12 months have subsequently been charged with an offence or offences relating to terrorism?

Mr. Rees: I shall give the figures in a minute. The other main powers available to the police are the port control powers. All passengers travelling through ports are liable to examination.

Mr. James Dempsey: Will the Secretary of State say why all these people are detained and whether their relatives have legal rights to see them?

Mr. Rees: I shall come to that later.
All passengers travelling through ports are liable to examination, but comparatively few are detained. A total of 2,191 people—554 of them in the last year—have been held under this power. An indication of the small numbers involved is that the number of passengers who passed through major Irish ports in 1977 was nearly 4 million, of whom 308 were formally detained.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: What is an Irish port?

Mr. Rees: It is a port of entry from the North or South of Ireland. I understand the right hon. Member's query. We are using jargon. Jargon and reality are simetimes exactly the same. This reminds me of a former existence as Secretary of State when I talked about Irish ports.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: Such as Liverpool.

Mr. Rees: I do not know whether I mentioned Liverpool. I am referring to ports in this country to which people from Ireland come.
I turn to the question of charges brought for offences. A total of 21 people—eight in the last year—have been charged with offences under the Acts, such as soliciting or giving money in connection with acts of terrorism, failing to disclose information relating to acts of terrorism, or seeking to enter part of the United Kingdom from which they had been excluded.
A total of 118 people—20 in the past year—have been charged with offences in Great Britain after they had been detained under the Acts. These included murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to cause explosions, the unlawful possession of explosives and offences under the Firearms Act.
The House will recall that last year I undertook to see what further information could be provided about the results of charges. This involved an extensive review by the police of their records, but I was able to give information last October and I shall continue to report any further information. The information that was given in Hansard last October broke it down to the number of people detained by police forces in different parts of the coutnry.
The criticism has been made that only a small proportion of those detained under the Act are eventually charged. However, as I have said before, the test is not the number of charges but their nature and gravity. We are after all dealing with only a small number of terrorists. The situation in Northern Ireland is exactly the same as it is here. A small number of people are engaged in terrorism. But we should be under no


illusions about the amount of destruction that they can cause.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Why does my right hon. Friend feel that the police need these extra powers for those people who have clearly committed these acts of terrorism? Long before the Act was introduced the police had adequate powers to deal with them.

Mr. Rees: I shall come to that in a moment.
Having reviewed the operation of the Act, I come to my reasons for asking the House to renew the operation of the Act for a further period of 12 months. Although the review by Lord Shackleton—I mentioned this a year ago—has some bearing on this matter, the main point is that the responsibility for asking for a renewal is mine. It is not something that I can put off to someone else or to an inquiry. It is for Parliament to decide whether to grant that request. I have to make a judgment, on the information available to me, about the extent of the threat from Irish terrorism to the mainland of Great Britain.
The past year has been free of terrorist attacks. That is a statistical statement. There is no gloating about it. It is simply a statement of fact. But that is only part of the picture. The House will not expect me to go into detail about my information in this respect. It would be foolish to reveal such matters. The House must take my judgment on trust. It is a judgment not lightly arrived at but it is one for which I have responsibility.
One aspect—I shall not go into great detail—is our knowledge of how the IRA operates by means of what they call active service units. These groups of four or five terrorists, hidden away in small flats and rooms in our larger cities, may often lie low for long periods before carrying out a terrorist crime. They may be quietly building up supplies of arms and explosives and surveying their targets. To the public at large the situation is peaceful and normal but under the surface the IRA may be planning its next campaign.
I can mention three points which may be of assistance to the House. The first is my understanding, formed in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland,

of events in Northern Ireland. As I said last year, we shall need legislation in Great Britain as long as there is IRA violence. Recent events show what cold-blooded savagery the IRA remains capable of.
The second point is the advice that I receive from senior levels in the police force. I remind the House that should the violence restart it would be the police who would have to deal with it. I must therefore weigh carefully the advice that I receive from the police.
Thirdly, there is evidence, which is now publicly known, of the efforts that the Provisional IRA have made in the last year to bring arms and explosives into this country. As recently as last August a discovery in Dublin revealed a complete terrorist's kit which was ready for shipment to Great Britain. That it was intended for use here is incontrovertible because the people who were to collect it had arranged a meeting place in the Home Counties.
The shipment contained 230 lb of explosives. Let me remind the House that experience has shown that a small bomb—some 2 lb or 3 lb of explosives—can kill several people and injure many scores more if it is expertly placed. There was a time when large amounts of explosives were required to create explosions because of the nature of the explosive that was being used, particularly in Northern Ireland—dehydrated nitrogen, for instance. With the more sophisticated explosives a small amount can create a bigger explosion.
I have little doubt that had the shipment been brought here, the story that I should have to tell the House would have been a more horrific one. We could have been experiencing terrorism on a scale as bad as anything in the last five years. The line between safety and terror is very thin. Let us be thankful for the year of peace and let us give the police the credit due for that, but let us at the same time recognise how fragile the present position is.
Let me here deal with the point raised earlier about the need for the powers to detain for two days and then for an extra five days. The police tell me that these provisions are extremely important for questioning and for checking purposes in different parts of the United Kingdom. That is something that I learned in


Northern Ireland. This is something that my right hon. Friend Lord Shackleton is looking at at the moment, and perhaps I could come to that shortly.
I believe that Lord Shackleton has the experience to examine those matters, to look at the papers and to travel to the various parts of the country and, by asking questions, see whether the legislation we passed is still required. As I made clear in the terms of reference, it is not his job to decide whether we need legislation. That is a matter for the House of Commons. What matters, however, is whether the various parts of the Act are still required in their present form, and that is what he will consider. I have no way of instructing my right hon. Friend on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas), but he is quite free to comment on that aspect.
I took account of a number of considerations before I announced the review. I made clear that I was not seeking a Gardiner-type review which considered the whole situation in Northern Ireland which, in its way, partly led to the end of the use of detention in Northern Ireland. I explained that I was setting up a practical review into the working of an Act. I considered carefully a number of ways in which I could give reassurance and information, invoking the advice of an independent person of high standing with a view to a report being published. I had to consider any possible overlap that might exist with the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure and the introduction of the new system for the investigation of complaints against the police, which came into force in the middle of the year.
Finally, the situation in Northern Ireland had to be taken into account in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. With Northern Ireland matters one always has to consider how an inquiry of this kind might be seen in the Province where people see things differently from people in the rest of the United Kingdom.
For a number of reasons it was not possible for the review to start before December, but Lord Shackleton was able to start right away. How lie carries out the review is a matter for him. It is difficult to say when his report is likely to be published. I should like to remind

the House, however, of the terms of reference of the review. They are:
Accepting the continuing need for legislation against terrorism, to assess the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts 1974 and 1976, with particular regard to the effectiveness of this legislation and its effect on the liberties of the subject, and to report".
The review extends to the whole of the United Kingdom.
I shall now say a little about what might follow publication of Lord Shackleton's report. This has some bearing on my asking for a 12-month renewal. After it has been published the House will have a full chance in due course to debate it. I stress, however, that this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. If the report were to cast doubt on whether the Act should be continued in whole or in part, it would be a simple matter to bring an) or all of its provisions to a close by order, if that were to be the Government's decision.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend not think that he could have waited until after the Shackleton Report came out before seeking renewal of these provisions?

Mr. Rees: If I had, the Act would have lapsed on 24th March, and that could not be. In my view, the best thing is to renew it for 12 months. I have just said that the Government are clear in their belief that we need legislation. We shall have to see what the report says. If any parts need a change, I shall consider the matter. This is extremely helpful to me, let alone those with other considerations—quite proper considerations.

Mr. Fitt: Does my right hon. Friend pay any regard to the dictum that there is nothing more permanent than that which is regarded as temporary? Is it a fact that most of those who have been detained, convicted and charged have been convicted not of any offence within the island of Great Britain but of an offence in Northern Ireland? Would nor my right hon. Friend, with his experience of Northern Ireland, regard it as helpful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to ask that the same provision as he has made for


inquiry into the Prevention of Terrorism Act in Great Britain should be applied to Northern Ireland, where the legislation is even more Draconian than in the island of Great Britain?

Mr. Rees: All that I can speak on is the question of legislation that applies to the whole United Kingdom. Lord Shackleton has been to Northern Ireland.
The other legislation for which I was responsible is a different matter—a matter for my right hon. Friend. The statistics that I gave a moment ago were for charges in Great Britain, not the United Kingdom. I think that my hon. Friend misunderstood.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Why did the Home Secretary decide to have only one person carry out the inquiry? Does he not think that that imposes an unreasonable responsibility on Lord Shackleton? What support facilities will be provided to Lord Shackleton to carry out his inquiry?

Mr. Rees: I am always very dubious about inquiries. I believe that wherever possible a Secretary of State should do the thing himself, because it is to the House that a Minister is responsible. However, that could not have been done with the Gardiner inquiry.
The support given to Lord Shackleton is good. He has told me how good it is. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, with his knowledge of the work of the police, is aiding Lord Shackleton, as is the Chief Inspector of Constabulary in Scotland. I know what help Lord Shackleton has been given in Northern Ireland.
I must make clear into what subject the inquiry goes. There was a need for somebody to stand aside from the day-to-day operation of the legislation, to go to the ports and certain parts of the country, to look at the papers, to see the procedures followed in different parts of the country.
We are dealing with a temporary provisions Act. Here I take up what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). There is always a danger—though not on principle, because this is a matter for the House—that something carries on in the old way when that is no longer appropriate. It

was in that spirit that I said what I said to the House a year ago.

Mr. Stan Thorne: My right hon. Friend wants to see Lord Shackleton conduct an independent inquiry. He must know that a group of us went to see Lord Shackleton to put to him certain views about the Act only a few days ago. Lord Shackleton did not give us the impression that it would take him a year to produce a report arising from his investigations. Therefore, would not it be possible to renew the temporary provisions for three months, by which time I am sure Lord Shackleton would have produced a report?

Mr. Rees: It is a matter of judgment. This measure will be renewed for 12 months if the House agrees, but I have already said that if any changes in the workings of the Act are required we can debate them in the House. We are not talking about matters of principle. I, too, am extremely interested in what Lord Shackleton has to say. He is interested in the efficiency of the legislation and in the question whether the procedures set out under the Act are being carried out properly.
There was an article in The Sunday Times last week which, in my view, was misconceived and which misunderstood the nature of the Act. I presume that the person who wrote it talked to Lord Shackleton and brought his information before Lord Shackleton. I have not checked this, but I am sure that anyone who writes an article in The Sunday Times is the sort of person who would do so. It is that sort of newspaper. It does not do things for effect. We shall see.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Can the Home Secretary give an assurance that the Shackleton Report, as it will become, will be debated before the Summer Recess? I think that that would relieve the anxieties of many hon. Members.

Mr. Rees: The hon. and learned Gentleman is pressing me rather hard on this. I cannot give an assurance about the timing. I was trying to assure the House that I have set up the Shackleton inquiry. I want the report to be debated. It is important that the workings of such a vital piece of legislation is debated in


the House. I cannot be firm on the timing. I would like to see the report as soon as possible. Not even that, I think, will satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman, because I am not Leader of the House.

Mr. Powell: Is it not correct to say that, by order made under this Act following, for example the Shackleton Report, it would be possible to modify the operation of the Act only by dropping existing provisions, but that no other alteration than cessation of some of the provisions would be possibly by order?

Mr. Rees: That is correct. Let us take a matter in which the right hon. Gentleman has shown an interest in the past year or so—the method of questioning at the ports. A change was made in that respect. I shall be interested to know whether that has proved to be of use. If it has not, we shall have to make a judgment. If it proves to have been a misconceived idea, it can be dropped. The nature of the inquiry that I promised a year ago was of this kind, to see, how the Act was working.
There need be no delay of any kind in implemting any administrative changes which Lord Shackleton may recommend. It is often the administrative methods used to implement legislation which are important.
I was asked about the Judges' Rules. This issue may come up later, so I will simply say that changes were made under Section 62 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. Those changes apply to the Prevention of Terrorism Act in the same way as to other legislation.
I believe that the Act continues to have an important role to play and that recent events in Northern Ireland have reminded us of the continuing danger. We must maintain our vigilance. The position is one to which I have given careful attention. We shall continue to monitor the ports, and I look forward, in due course, to receiving Lord Shackleton's report. I ask the House to agree that this is the right course.

Mr. Fitt: On the question of exclusion orders, will my right hon. Friend tell the House how many people have been excluded from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and from Northern Ireland to Great Britain? He will recognise that

this was a very important point raised during the course of the passage of the Bill by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who asked whether it was possible to exclude people from one part of Great Britain to other parts of Great Britain. My right hon. Friend must have these figures at his disposal. I should like to know, in addition, how many of those who were excluded from Great Britain to Northern Ireland were charged with terrorist offences on landing in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Rees: I gave figures. I accept that it is difficult to take them on board. The figure for people excluded from Northern Ireland to Great Britain is nil. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) can look after himself in matters concerning the principle of reciprocity within the United Kingdom, which was the point that he made.
On behalf of the people of this country, I am concerned about active service units—people who have been active in Northern Ireland in the Provisional IRA and, indeed, in other organisations.

Mr. Fitt: The Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force.

Mr. Rees: I am concerned about those who have been very active in Northern Ireland and who are living in parts of the United Kingdom and in some cases associating with known people in the Republican movement. I have to make a judgment on that. I am advised that the threat is from small groups in a small active service unit, spread about different parts of the country and often using nearby telephone boxes in order to pass information.
I have to make that judgment, and if at the end of the day I were to get it wrong and there were explosions in the constituencies of any of us in this country, many hon. Members would be first to chase me and ask why they had occurred. I have to make a judgment which balances civil rights on the one hand with the threat that we are up against on the other hand. I have to do all I can to support the police and to protect the community.
The Provisional IRA—my hon. Friend knows this, because he always speaks up on it in Northern Ireland—is an army; it is not a political movement. Its aim


is to get what it wants by means of explosions and killings, and it glories in them in a way that I find quite remarkable. We are dealing with a form of terrorism which has driven us to move marginally from the sorts of freedoms to which we are accustomed in this country. It is the price that we have to pay. Those who believe that we should not do so are ignoring the facts of life which are apparent to anyone within 24 hours of arriving in Northern Ireland.

8.39 p.m.

Sir Michael Havers: The House will be grateful to the Home Secretary for his careful and useful report on the use of the order and for the information about the setting up of the Shackleton inquiry. As I support pretty well every word that he said, I can be very short.
The question that I think the House has to face tonight is this: do the facts justify a substantial modification—because that is what it is—of certain civil liberties in the interests of defeating terrorism? No one can doubt that there still exists within this Kingdom a hard core of people prepared to kill and maim, with the intention of forcing any Government to change their declared principles about Northern Ireland.
This intention to force change is supported by wicked, murderous attacks upon innocent people, without caring who may be the victims, in order to create such an atmosphere of terror that the public forces the Government to change their mind. Such actions cannot be acceptable in any democracy. Indeed, if they succeed, they destroy that democracy and encourage imitators to act accordingly to achieve their own purposes against the will of the people.
The fact that there has been a lull in Britain must not be taken to mean that the threat has been removed. Recent events in Northern Ireland show the dangers of any such optimism, and I defy anyone to say that there are no sleepers awaiting their orders to awake and act in England. If the IRA thinks that its cause will be advanced by renewing its terrorism on the mainland with the use of the active service units to which the Home Secretary referred and which are present at the moment quiescent

inside this country, it will do so. Therefore, in my view, the continuance of this provision is essential.
May I add one comment about the responsibility which the Home Secretary has to act in his own discretion? Of course, he gets advice, and I suspect that part of the advice which he gets is from Commander Neville of the anti-terrorist squad. I know that officer extremely well as a result of certain court cases in which I was involved. In my view, he is a very remarkable police officer upon whose judgment I should be willing to place very great weight. It comforts me, when the Home Secretary is having to rely upon advice from others, to know that included in those numbers are people of the experience and total integrity of officers such as Commander Neville.
Because the House has given that discretion to the Home Secretary, in the end we have to rely upon a responsible exercise of that discretion. Nothing that I have heard since these provisions came into operation has shaken my confidence in the way that it is exercised, and I invite the House to support the order.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: There is one area in which the House is united, and it is in our abhorrence of terrorism of all sorts. If from these Benches some of us question the measure, it is not because we lend any support to terrorist acts but simply because we question whether the order is not counter-productive.
I begin with a comment on the speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I want especially to thank him for the up-to-date figures which he provided. However, I am concerned that he seems to think that because only a small number of people were eventually charged out of the large number detained, that somehow justifies this measure if that small number of people were eventually convicted of very serious offences.
Very little work is done to see what impact this measure has on the very large number of innocent people who are detained for a lengthy time. There should be some consideration of the psychological effect that it has on an innocent person detained under these provisions for what is to anyone in detention a long period. It may be the sort of experience


that results in people giving support or turning a blind eye to some terrorist act. The recounting of their stories may also cause support for the terrorists. So I hope that Lord Shackleton's inquiry considers the impact which this measure has had on innocent people who have been detained for long periods of time. Judging from the number of people who have been charged, there must be many innocent people being held under this measure.
I turn, then, to the inquiry which Lord Shackleton is conducting. It seems to me to be unfortunate that, although we were promised in a debate almost 12 months ago that an inquiry would be set up, it took virtually nine months to find anyone to conduct the inquiry and to set it up and that clearly we are unlikely to get a report for at least another few months. I should have thought that a little more urgency in setting up the inquiry would have been better.
I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend undertake that he would do all that he could to ensure that there was a debate fairly soon after publication of the report. I also understand from my right hon. Friend's remarks that he will bring forward an amending order if Lord Shackleton recommends that some parts of this measure are no longer necessary. I hope that he will go a little further and say that if Lord Shackleton felt that a different type of Act or a different approach in the Act was necessary, he would try to bring forward legislation amending the Act, rather than merely bringing forward alterations to the order now before the House.
I also appreciate that the Home Secretary has difficulty in ever ending this temporary measure. He is always under the difficulty that if he does not renew it and some incident happens a week or two later, he will be blamed. As the Act was originally very much a cosmestic measure, I appreciate my right hon. Friend's difficulty. I hope at least that he can see the advantage, when the matter comes up for renewal, of coming to the House and saying that it will be the final renewal, so that he takes a decision that is well detached from the actual date when the provisions run out.
I turn to some particular provisions. The exclusion orders are one of the matters that puzzle me the most. Since the Act came into operation, I think

that 119 people have been excluded. First, it seems odd that such a small number of them have appealed. It may be that most of them felt that their exclusion was perfectly just, but I suspect that many did not appeal because they saw no justice in the appeal procedure itself.
If one does not know what one is charged with, it is very difficult to prepare an appeal against it. It is also very difficult to be certain that someone must be excluded and yet not to be able to bring forward charges that will stand up in the courts. It is also very difficult that one cannot bring forward charges and at least disclose them to the person one intends to exclude without there being a risk of damaging one's security information.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: These matters come to me. I give a lot of time to them. The judgment that I have to make is not whether someone should be charged. I should add that I still have some residual knowledge of the situation in Northern Ireland., being heavily involved in the days of detention, and of a man who is an active member of the Provisional IRA, and of another instance, recently, of the UVF in Northern Ireland. The judgment that I have to make is not whether there should be a charge but why the person concerned is living in a part of the United Kingdom. These are not easy decisions to take, but they are not taken on the basis whether the person should come up in court. They are questions, for instance, about the setting up of an active service unit in some part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bennett: I accept that argument. However, last year 24 people were excluded. If they were excluded because it was felt that they were involved in some way in setting up active service units, I should have thought that in good policing terms it would have been better to keep those 24 people under surveillance and try to obtain, by watching them, information that might lead to the arrest or apprehension of the whole of the active service units, rather than exclude them. I realise that if one has to keep track of a large number of people, that becomes very expensive and difficult in terms of police manning. But in terms of a mere 24 people during the last year, I should have thought that it


was a practical proposition for the police to keep those people under surveillance if they were really dangerous, rather than simply turfing them out.
I come to the question of the qualification period. If someone who is regarded as dangerous has been here for 20 years he cannot be excluded. Why is 20 years the magic period? I am very puzzled by this because I cannot see why it should not be 18 or 19 years. In all logic the time limit should be much lower—somewhere in the region of five years. A person who has been in the English community for that length of time will have built up so many links that it is reasonable that he should stay. If we broke down the figure of 24, I am sure that we would find that the number who had been here longer than five years, was even smaller. We could easily keep tabs on them by police surveillance.
I am concerned that the order allows the Government to take people who are integrated into the English community, move them to Northern Ireland and assume that they become less of a risk to the community there. It is quite unacceptable to take people who are considered a risk in England and put them in Northern Ireland where they will become an even greater risk. This is very puzzling.
I turn to Section 11 of the Act which I do not believe has been abused much in practice. However, it contains provisions which, if accepted into English law, are extremely dangerous. They concern the question of someone who knows or believes, and fails without reasonable excuse to tell the police that another person is about to commit an offence. Very often it is easy to know this with hindsight—it is easy to be wise after the event. It is very dangerous that people can be charged with not providing information to the police which afterwards it seems obvious that they should have provided at the time, but which was not really so obvious at all. Section 11 is causing a lot of concern and I believe that it should be dropped from the legislation.
I turn to the question of arrest, and whether people should have the right to communicate with a solicitor or with relatives. I realise that as a result of amendments to the Criminal Law Bill

last summer—or Act as it is now—the Home Secretary will monitor this provision. Has he asked Lord Shackleton to look at the question of differences between England and Scotland? How far are the police handicapped in Scotland because a person detained there has a right to legal representation and contact with a lawyer immediately, whereas in England that person does not have an automatic right. The right can be given only through the Judges' Rules. It would be interesting to see whether the police feel that they are at a disadvantage in Scotland compared with England in carrying out this legislation. Or perhaps we should have the same provisions as of right in both England and Scotland.
The real practice of this legislation tends to be used to harry the Irish community, particularly in movements to and from Ireland. In practice, during the past 12 months terrorism has been contained in the United Kingdom by good police work and because the provisional IRA has found its terrorist activities counter-productive. Also there has been co-operation from the vast majority of Irish residents in the United Kingdom. The continuation of this legislation tends to weaken the will of Irish people in England to help the whole community combat terrorism.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) has stressed the risk of psychological damage to those who are detained for a comparatively short period. I know that with his usual fairness he will concede, on the other hand, that often there is a certainty that if criminals and terrorists are not apprehended there will be not merely psychological damage but serious physical injury to people. In many cases people will lose their lives. I know that hon. Members will appreciate this because many, on both sides of the House, have had constituents who have been victims of terrorism.
I wish briefly to examine the workings of controls at ports and airports. If the controls and scrutiny are to be effective, they should at least have something in common. They should not be as patchy as they now appear to be. I say "appear" advisedly because appearance is part of the deterrent. There must be evidence that the authorities as a whole


have a grip on the situation and, above all, that they know what they are doing.
If we examine first the situation in the ports, there would appear in my experience to be no consistent pattern in the measures taken at the two main ports of entry in Northern Ireland, Stranraer and Liverpool. One has the impression that far too much importance is attached to the spot check. If one has the misfortune to be singled out for special scrutiny—and one might almost say special treatment—the check can be rigorous indeed, but for the vast majority of people who escape the net completely the checks at least appear—again I use that word advisedly—to be almost nonexistent. I do not advocate queue-forming examinations, but I am certain that the public would have a great deal more confidence in a system based on something more convincing than the present hit-or-miss procedure.
It is perhaps when we turn to the airports that we find the greatest inconsistencies. At Gatwick the arriving passenger is expected to complete a landing card, which is checked against some document of identity. The same procedure is employed the other way round against departing passengers. In both cases there is a certain degree of delay and inconvenience but most passengers accept these as necessary.
However, if they are necessary at Gatwick, why are they unnecessary at Heathrow, where no such check system is employed? The screening appears to be related to age groups and possibly almost to style and appearance. I have noticed that if a young person comes into the airport wearing tattered jeans, not particularly tidy in the upper storey, with hair flying around, he is inevitably brought in for questioning, whereas somebody with short back and sides and much more respectably attired is normally allowed to go free. I hope that I am not putting ideas into anybody's head, but I am sure that this will not have escaped the attention of the potential terrorist.
In the past we have been told that the contrast between those two airports results from the fact that they are situated in different police areas. If it be true that no man is an island entire of himself, the same could be said about these

two airports. Whatever the distance between the two airports, the vast majority of their passengers end up in a small section of London roughly between Victoria and Gloucester Road. I find it impossible to justify such a wide variation in the processing of travellers who will be rubbing shoulders within an hour of arriving in the capital city. I trust that some action will now be taken to ensure that these measures, taken with a common objective in view, bear some resemblance to one another.
The Home Secretary said that the police were aiming at consistent standards in procedure and made that remark in relation to Scotland Yard. One assumes that Scotland Yard is the coordinating centre for the whole operation. If that be the case, why is it so difficult to ensure that it can enforce standard procedures at the subordinate centres and at the point of entry?
If this is being done to secure the protection of the citizens of the United Kingdom, on whatever side of the Irish Sea they live, those citizens will be somewhat disturbed by the Home Secretary's confirmation of the potential destructive force and power of explosives intended for shipment from Dublin to the Home Counties. It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman shares the serious view taken by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the desirability and necessity for the Government of the Irish Republic to co-operate fully in eliminating supplies of bomb-making material and—perhaps even more important—in preventing the movement of terrorists and suspected terrorists from all parts of the British Isles.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Robert Parry: I should like at the beginning of my speech to make clear, as have other hon. Members, that I am totally opposed to any violence or terrorism which has resulted in the deaths of innocent people. I represent a Liverpool constituency, and I have hoped and prayed over many years that the tragic instances of terror occurring in other parts of the United Kingdom would never occur in Liverpool, because we are so close to Belfast and Dublin. However, we have had a couple of narrow squeaks in the past couple of years. My constituency includes


the Liverpool Irish centre, which is the headquarters of the Irish community of Merseyside. In the Scotland Road area we have the old Liverpool Irish Catholic communities who have lived there for many generations. In the Netherfield Road area, for many generations we have had the traditional Orange supporters. Fortunately, thank goodness, over many years we have had peace and harmony among these two communities of Merseyside. But recently in my constituency, unfortunately a senior officer of the Protestant paramilitary organisation was convicted of terrorist activities. Supporters of the IRA have attempted to explode a fire bomb in one of the public buildings in the city centre, so we are aware of the problems in Liverpool.
I received a letter from the Liverpool Irish Centre and this afternoon spoke to Mr. Tom Walsh, who is known by many hon. Members as a leading member of the Irish community in England. He is a very moderate man who has made a great contribution towards Irish culture, sport and entertainment. Mr. Walsh asked me to raise some points in the debate. The letter from the Irish Centre says:
Only at the weekend I was involved in a case of two brothers who came to Liverpool from Belfast for a funeral and were detained. One was representing his trade union at the funeral.
I understand that those two brothers, named McGurk, who have been coming and going from London over many years at least every fortnight, are seamen and have been entering London from Belfast and returning home without harassment or being picked up by the police. There is nothing in their characters to suggest that they have been involved in any terrorist organisations. Yet the first time that they came to Liverpool they were arrested at Liverpool Airport.
I understand that the aged mother of the two men rang up the Irish Centre in tears because she was terrified. She did not know what had happened to her sons. The letter from the Irish Centre continues:
A few weeks ago I was involved in a very depressing case of a very young wife who had recently had a miscarriage. Her husband was taken from her on the boat and she was left with all her luggage and completely uninformed as to what was happening. I spent a couple of days working on her behalf and she was near hysterical most of the time.

The most urgent aspects are (a) seven days detention is too long and should be abolished; (b) relatives must be informed of detention within hours; (c) a solicitor must be available within at least 12 hours.
On Merseyside I understand that we have seen a quarter of the total number of detentions under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I understand that the recent figure for the total number of detentions is 3,098. The number of detentions at ports is 2,171 and those made by the Merseyside police, 767. Just under one-quarter of all the detentions in the United Kingdom and one-third of the detentions made at ports of entry are made on Merseyside.
Recently on Merseyside a prominent Irish trade union official, Mr. Phil Flynn, was arrested. I understand that he is acting general secretary of the Irish Local Government and Public Servants Union and was the full-time health service officer of the National Union of Public Employees in London from 1963 to 1967. I was a NUPE organiser at that time and, although I have never met Mr. Flynn, I understand that he has never been involved in terrorist organisations. He came to Liverpool on trade union business and it was only through representations made to the chief constable by the local trades council and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) that Mr. Flynn was released.
In a submission to the Shackleton Committee which is reviewing the Act, the Federation of Irish Societies said:
People who have been detained under the Act, even though not charged, are terrified to say they have been detained because of the stigma attached. Men have actually lost their jobs after being held for questioning—again even though no charges were made.
Most of the Irish Societies in Britain, particularly in the areas with large communities, felt that all their activities, social occasions, charity collections came under suspicion after the introduction. Many of the Societies were collecting for holidays for children who live normally in Belfast and Derry. These collections virtually dried up. People were actually afraid to collect or contribute lest it be suggested (as it was in some British newspapers) that the money was being used to promote terrorism.
I have never supported renewal of these provisions. The Home Secretary said that the provisions would be renewed for one year and not for three months as some of my hon. Friends have suggested, but I feel that interpretation of the Act


varies between police authorities in different areas. There is still a lot of concern on Merseyside, not only in the trade union movement, the National Council for Civil Liberties and the Irish community but among people in general, and I should like the Home Secretary to comment on the situation in Merseyside.
I appreciate that there will be arrests on Merseyside because the port is used by so many Dublin and Belfast boats, but I believe that a number of those who are arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act could be arrested under other legislation. I asked the Home Secretary recently how many people had been arrested under the Act but charged under different Acts. I was told that some detainees have been charged with various trivial offences, such as motoring offences, theft or resisting arrest. I am sure that the police could deal with these people without using the Act.
Many people believe that the Act could be used for harassment and intimidation. I am also concerned about the photographing and finger-printing of people who are detained. Is it correct that even if these people are cleared and released, their photographs and fingerprints are kept on file?
In the light of the Home Secretary's reference to vigilance, I will conclude with a phrase from a speech which is often quoted by an old friend of mine from Liverpool—Joe Kelly. The quotation is from a speech by John Philpot Currans on the election of a Lord Mayor of Dublin on 10th July 1790:
The condition upon which God hath given liberty to Man is eternal vigilance.
Those words are as true now as they were 200 years ago. For that reason, I shall be voting against the order.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Any measure which bears the title "Prevention of Terrorism" or which could colourably be represented as assisting in the prevention of terrorism would naturally attract the good will and support of the people of Northern Ireland whom hon. Members on the Ulster Unionist Bench represent. Nevertheless, it would have been objectionable had the renewal of this order for a further 12 months not come under severe scrutiny in this debate.
The provisions of the present Act, since the inception at the end of 1974, have been highly objectionable to the people of Northern Ireland. It is indeed preposterous that, by the time this order has run its course, it will be more than four years during which it has been possible for a citizen of the United Kingdom compulsorily to be shifted from one part of the United Kingdom to another part of the United Kingdom. Such provisions can indeed be designated as temporary, but they are inherently objectionable in their very nature.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who has not been able to with us tonight for very long, thought it a ground for amusement that, in the amendment of the original Act, reciprocity in this respect was instituted between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and elicited for the second time from the Home Secretary the information that the power had not been used in the reverse direction.
I make no apology at all for the fact that I pressed for that provision and I believe that the Government were fully justified in introducing it—and that for two reasons; first, we have actual evidence of the preparation in Great Britain of persons and materials destined for the commission of terrorist offences in Northern Ireland, so that it is impossible to deny that the circumstances can, and indeed do, exist in both directions; but, secondly, if we are to have the kind of legislation which makes it possible for citizens of the United Kingdom to be shifted from one part to the other, at any rate one part of the United Kingdom should not become the one-way recipient of this traffic. So it was entirely right that the Act should be framed in a reciprocal form.
I was relieved to hear what the Home Secretary had to say on the report which he is to obtain from Lord Shackleton, for it is quite clear that a scrupulous investigation is now called for as to the extent to which these provisions are having any effect whatsoever.
The Home Secretary said, I think, that 20 persons who had been detained under this Act had been charged with offences from murder downwards. But of course that in itself does not prove that the Act was essential to the detention, arrest


and conviction of those persons. I appreciate that it is difficult to do so. I appreciate that it is possible to argue that it was on the seventh day of detention, or as a result of other persons, who were later released, having been detained, that it was possible to identify and eventually convict these persons.
However, difficult though it may be—here again, I see the advantage of the sort of inquiry that the Home Secretary has instituted—we should not rest content with just being told that 20 persons who have gone through this process have sooner or later been found guilty of what were offences anyhow under the law of this country. It was in any case the duty of the police in this country to apprehend them for those offences.

Mr. Tom Litterick: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that an additional advantage in appointing Lord Shackleton was that it took nine months to appoint him? We are now giving the Act a 12-month renewal knowing full well that Lord Shackleton's report is due quite soon.

Mr. Powell: It is not for me to apologise for the delay in the appointment of Lord Shackleton to these duties. That is the business of the Government. I would have been glad of the earliest review and detailed examination of the working and application of these provisions.
I come to the other case in point that the right hon. Gentleman cited. He referred to the Dublin consignment, if I may so describe it, that was mercifully prevented from reaching its intended destination in England. However, I inquire whether it was prevented from arriving because of the exclusion clauses. Were they necessary to the discovery that the consignment would be on its way? Or were the powers of detention necessary or used in the identification of the consignment? It is conceivable that they might have been. Again, I appreciate that it may be difficult for the Home Secretary in any particular case to parade before the House the perhaps complex stages by which information reached the point at which it could be used. Nevertheless, the fact is—we in the House must face it—that prima facie there is little connection between the events cited by the right hon.

Gentleman and the powers that are conveyed by the Act that we are renewing.
Thirdly, there is the point upon which my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) has already touched, namely, the bewildering lack of uniformity with which the provisions of the Act are enforced. As my hon. Friend was arguing, if it is necessary for the security of life and property in Great Britain that persons entering Great Britain by air from Northern Ireland should complete a form and verify that they are the persons who are signing the form, it must equally be necessary to do so whether they are entering at Liverpool, Gatwick or Heathrow.
This lack of uniformity damages the support of the public and the comprehension of the public for the need for these irksome and in some cases—I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry)—harassing provisions. He is right to say that they could be harassing. To say that does not mean that the police are deliberately engaging in victimisation; it means that by the very nature of examination directed to the purposes of the Act there may easily be circumstances of distress.
It is the experience of those of us who frequently make the journey, and who, because we are ourselves known, normally have a fairly easy passage—which is reasonable enough, as we are identified and are thus easy targets for apprehension should we engage in terrorist offences—that we have felt a certain sense of shame when we have seen others, no doubt in every case as innocent of any evil intent as we are, and conceivably more innocent, being held up for considerable periods.
So the inquiry ought not only to establish whether any assessable benefit is now being derived from each of these provisions, but, where any provisions are still felt to be necessary, to secure that their enforcement is uniform, seen to be uniform, and accessible to explanation by common sense.
I shall not return to the old debate between the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor and myself about the business of the common travel area and the passport. At the time I accepted the argument of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor that examination of the passports of persons entering this country is a different


process from surveillance of persons entering this country with a view to the prevention of terrorism. Nevertheless, if, as I hope, we are very soon to drop this legislation, we shall need to give attention to some regular and acceptable form of checking entry into the United Kingdom from the Irish Republic as from all other countries. That process involves no stigma and conveys no criticism, but is necessary in many respects for the protection of the public interest in the United Kingdom.
When the time comes—I trust that it will be soon—when we can dispense with these provisions, I hope that our law and administration in other respects will enable us to exercise neither more nor less than normal surveillance over all persons not belonging to this country who seek to enter it.
Therefore, I join with others in hoping that we shall see the duration of this order in practice being less than the 12-month period which is upon the face of it, and that, when the Shackleton Report is available and has been debated, it will appear that we can at least narrow and rationalise, if not dispense with, a provision which, if it is irksome to the inhabitants of the rest of the United Kingdom, is offensive as well as irksome to the people of Northern Ireland.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. John Ellis. I am sorry. Mr. Flannery.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I am not mistaken for my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis).

Mr. Speaker: Order. I feel that I owe both hon. Gentlemen an apology.

Mr. Flannery: There was a suggestion that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) might be mistaken for Mike Yarwood, but we will pass over that.
I share the desire of the right hon. Member for Down, South that the Act need not be on the statute book for another year. I should hope that this would be an occasion for an extension of

three months and then for a change when the Shackleton Report came out.
What binds us together in the debate tonight is what my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) referred to as an abhorrence of terrorism. Indeed, most Labour Members have worked for civil liberties for many years. We often find it necessary to say that, especially when these debates are reported, so that people may know that we are totally opposed to terrorism and violence. Many hon. Members, including myself, have struggled and fought for human liberty in South Africa, Iran, Latin America, Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, and other countries. These are our credentials for fighting now for human liberty in our own country.
I find it necessary, without developing this theme, to reiterate what Opposition Members have heard me say on many occasions, namely, that there would not have been any need for this legislation had there been democracy in Northern Ireland. The greatest defence against terrorism is democracy. Where there is a lack of democracy and communalist politics violence breaks out. Democracy is still not present in Northern Ireland. The sooner it is the sooner this type of Draconian Act can be relegated to the dustbin of history.
I wish to speak about the injustice of exclusion orders. They are really deportation orders. The Secretary of State mentioned reciprocity. He is more aware than I that exclusion still goes in only one direction. I do not know of any exclusions from Northern Ireland in this direction. If there are any I should like to hear about them.
One of the most terrible things is that most people know nothing about this Act. They know nothing about the exclusion orders. They know nothing about the arrest and detention without trial that is going on in their midst. They merely know that a panic measure was taken after the Birmingham bombings. The details of what that resulted in are known only to politicians, and basically only to those at this level. Most of the people in trade unions do not know what an exclusion order is. They do not know that it is a deportation order.
The National Council for Civil Liberties has described exclusion orders. We


should take note of its summary of them. It states:
To make an exclusion order, secret evidence is presented to the Home Secretary by the police. Neither suspect nor any legal officer appointed by a court of law has access to such evidence. Thus exclusion orders operate entirely outside the rule of law. This is a form of punishment without trial. It is particularly serious when applied to individuals who have left Northern Ireland in order to escape personal involvement with the troubles.
To be accused of something and never to be made aware of what is surely the ultimate.
Many of my hon. Friends could give details of how this operates. The NCCL has the old figures. It says that of the 110 orders made, 20 representations were made against the orders. A total of six succeeded. Those figures are almost up to date. They tell an awful story of people being arrested without knowing why. We use the semi-genteel word "exclusion" when we know that it means deportation.
The real aim is to gather information about the Irish community in this country. People from that community are arrested but they have no right, as arrested persons, to do anything about false imprisonment or arrest, even when it is shown ultimately that they have no connection with terrorism.
In the process of questioning, knowledge is given about the Irish community. It could be argued that this is necessary to stop the bombings. However, many of us believe that far from its being an act to prevent terrorism, it is an act by which a section of our community is terrorised. Anyone who has struggled in the cause of human liberty is bound to abhor the fact that this should occur.
My figures may be wrong, but of the 3,017 people detained, 2,100 were at ports of entry. Sixty-five were subsequently charged, and there were 47 convictions. We do not know, however, whether there was more than one conviction per individual. In other words, the 47 convictions were not necessarily against 47 people.
Many of us contend that this terrifying ritual to which some of our people have been subjected is unnecessary. We feel that the legislation that was in force before this Act was quite adequate to deal with the problem. This Act came

into being in order to prove to people that the Government were taking measures to combat terrorism, but it could have been proved in a less panic-stricken manner that existing legislation was quite sufficient to deal with the problems of these crimes. I reiterate that many of us believe that this legislation was born in panic, that it should not be continued, because it is unnecessary, and that if we are to extend it the extension should be for only a minimum period of three months. We are confident that the Shackleton Report will provide sufficient evidence to justify the withdrawal of this Draconian legislation.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The House should approve this order tonight, but reluctantly. We should suspend our final judgment on it until we receive the Shackleton Report, when we shall have something basic to go on. No hon. Member could justify this legislation except in a state of war. It is our view that the IRA has been in a state of war with this country for a considerable time.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) that at the time the Act was passed it was ineffective. In its early stages it was extremely useful in the attack against terrorism. Terrorism is a great threat to liberal values—

Mr. Litterick: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hooson: Not at the moment. If we had not had this Act, and if, following the Birmingham pub bombing, that terrorism had escalated to London, the action that the country would have demanded would have meant a far greater abrogation of civil liberties than we have seen under this Act.
The real problem is that this Act has an enormous potential for misuse. I have no doubt that even when it is properly used—that is, when there are genuine grounds for suspicion—many innocents are bruised by its processes. I have no doubt that what we have been told by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) and what is contained in the NCCL document of evidence should be properly investigated by Lord Shackleton's review.
However, in dealing with terrorists who are intent upon a certain course of action, the normal rules are not adequate. Although innocents have been bruised by the provisions, some people have been drawn into the net who otherwise might not have been. Let me pose a basic question. Is terrorism in the modern age a temporary state of affairs? If it is not, as I suspect, it is time that the House gave far greater consideration to the matter and had a debate in depth such as will take place on the Shackleton Report.
There is a great danger in a country such as this that when we approve this kind of legislation as a matter of necessity and urgency we get used to it. We get used to some of the methods employed and to the terms, and even police officers get used to the powers it gives and regret the lack of them in other directions.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is right in insisting that there should be a proper review of this matter with a view to obtaining the kind of measures that will enable us to deal with terrorist activity in time of peace without this kind of emergency legislation being extended from year to year and, far from being a temporary measure, becoming permanent. That is the great danger that all who value liberal values and civil liberty have in mind. That is why I say that we should approve the order tonight, because it is a necessity, but we should do so very reluctantly.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas).

Mr. Litterick: I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman was giving way to me.

Mr. Speaker: I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman had concluded.

Mr. Hooson: I had indicated to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) that I would give way to him, but I had forgotten about it until I was in the process of concluding. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Litterick: I have almost forgotten what I was going to say.
The hon. and learned Gentleman was properly careful in saying that he thought

that in its early months of application the Act was effective, but would he not concede that he, like my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, is not in a position to prove through convincing evidence of any direct character that it has been effective either in the short term or in the long term?

Mr. Hooson: That is so. There is no published evidence. But I suppose that in my profession I learn of certain things, and I adhere to the view that I expressed.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. Ron Thomas: When we have discussed this legislation on other occasions both my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary and the other gentleman whom we now prefer to forget, who is drawing a considerable salary in the European Economic Community, were able to point to certain acts of terrorism committed in this country, which all of us condemned and were appalled by, as a justification for continuing with the legislation.
My right hon. Friend began this evening by saying that last year this country was free of acts of terrorism. Nevertheless, he tells us that in flats and houses in some of our major cities there are active service units making ready for acts of terrorism. That is the suggestion related to us in a James Bond style. It would seem that that is the justification for continuing the legislation for another 12 months.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that there is enough legislation on the statute book and that the police have more than enough powers to deal with the active service units, if there are such in Britain. Without much firmer evidence, a much firmer indication of what my right hon. Friend is getting at, I can se no justification for asking the House tonight to extend the legislation for another 12 months.
A good deal has been said about Lord Shackleton's inquiry. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) rightly suggested a searching and in-depth inquiry. I understood him to say that the onus was on the Government to prove a correlation between this legislation—not the other police powers or any other legislation—and the dcrease in acts of terrorism and the arrests said to have been made.
I very much welcome the fact that Lord Shackleton is looking into the matter, but will he be any more successful in obtaining information than Members of Parliament have been? Unless the police, the Home Office and others involved are prepared to give him information, his report will be more or less useless. If the philosophy of the Home Office and the police in discussions with Lord Shackleton is that the arrests, the extension to seven days and the exclusion orders are purely executive orders, about which only the Home Secretary in his wisdom can make a judgment, Lord Shackleton presumably is not going to get any information on that score. There are the areas which are of crucial importance in terms of legislation.
I want to know what information the Home Office and the police are prepared to give to Lord Shackleton. If Lord Shackleton becomes as frustrated in his attempts to get information as I have become in seeking information about a couple of Bristolians who were served with exclusion orders I am afraid that his report will not enlighten us very much. I, too, cannot see why it is necessary to extend this legislation for another 12 months rather than for three months, until we have time to look at Lord Shackleton's report.
Like other hon. Members, I want to deal with exclusion orders. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hills-borough (Mr. Flannery) is right to say that this term is simply a euphemism for deportation. The right hon. Member for Down, South spoke of people being shifted—taken from their wives and families and jobs and shifted to another part of the country, without any indication of the charge against them.
In the case of the two Bristolians to whom I have referred I was contacted to see whether I could find even the slightest amount of information about the nature of the charges against them. I am sure that hon. Members will realise that it is not pleasant to be telephoned by a representative of a constituent who says that the constituent is in prison faced with an exclusion order and is likely to be separated from his wife, family and job and moved from Bristol to Northern Ireland. It is not pleasant to be told that that representative cannot get any

indication of the evidence against his client.
It is no good the lawyers in this House telling us about the right to legal representation. In both of these cases the men managed to get a solicitor to represent them. The solicitor telephoned me and said "I am trying to prepare a brief but I can get no indication of the evidence against my clients. What is the point of my attempting to prepare a brief?"
When the assessor appointed by the Home Secretary went to see Danny Ryan in Horfield Gaol he was asked by Danny Ryan what the evidence was against him. The assessor said "I have no idea. Even I do not know what it is." They spent about half an hour talking about Bristol City and Bristol Rovers. It was a pleasant time, but it was not very pleasant for Danny Ryan when he was deported to Northern Ireland.
What a strange situation this is. Here is someone suspected of being involved in committing acts of terrorism yet he is picked up and dumped in Northern Ireland, where he is allowed to go free. He is allowed to go free in the sense that Danny Ryan was allowed to go free, to be unemployed for most of the time because he could not get job. Eventually his wife and children found themselves in extreme difficulties.
Since the exclusion order was served on my constituent, Brendan Phelan, the family has broken up. He is, I understand, now separated from his wife, as a result of the long time that he has been in Northern Ireland. That is one family of which I know which has been smashed by this piece of legislation. When we get rid of this temporary legislation, will those who were deported to Northern Ireland be able to come back to their wives and families? I should like a clear-cut answer to that question, and the Home Office should tell us.
In order to show how ludicrous the legislation is, I refer to the case of a seaman who was picked up in Southampton at a minute before midnight, on an exclusion order, because he was alleged to have committed acts of terrorism. A clever lawyer, thank goodness, came along and said "We can show that he has been in this country for more than 20 years." As it was possible to prove this, the seaman was allowed to go back to


his ship, and he has carried on with his employment ever since. That shows what nonsense this legislation is.
I can understand the feelings of the Government, faced with the appalling outrages which took place in Birmingham and elsewhere. They obviously felt that they had to do something. But let us be clear about this—I say this to every one of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench—this kind of thing happens in the Soviet Union, in Czechoslovakia, in Chile or in South Africa, my hon. Friends are the first people to stand up, along with us, and shout about the loss of freedom in those countries. Let there be no mistake. If we have a piece of legislation which gives executive powers to the Home Secretary to deport anyone, without even giving him any indication of the evidence against him, it is not much different from some of the persecution in the Soviet Union. It is not much different from saying to someone "It is for the good of the State that you go into a mental hospital", or whatever it may be.
It is for these and many other reasons that I shall be voting against the renewal of the order tonight. I am convinced that the police had more than enough power before this legislation was brought in. If they have not that power, I am quite prepared that they should have it, providing that it is used to bring to court, and to punish with the full severity of the law, those who can be quite clearly proved, in a court of law, under British justice, to have been responsible for or to have been involved in acts of terrorism.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Roger Moate: I wish to make only a very short contribution, having listened to the whole of the debate. I felt that the contribution from the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) was somewhat illogical and needs to be answered. He told us that he will vote against the order tonight, having said that he thought that it should be renewed for only three months. If he can see a case for its being renewed for three months, he can hardly argue that it should be dropped altogether. I should have thought that his proper choice was simply to support a renewal for 12 months.

Mr. Ron Thomas: I shall be voting against the 12 months' renewal.

Mr. Moate: The hon. Gentleman, then, will be voting against the renewal of the order.
I take issue with the hon. Gentleman's comments when referring to what the Home Secretary said about the active service units. The hon. Gentleman used the phrase disparagingly, and talked about James Bond type allegations. If that is the way in which he dismisses the IRA threat in this country, I can only say that he is totally out of touch with the realities of the situation, as are many of his hon. Friends. I think that the Home Secretary represented the views of the British people and of his constituents far more accurately than they were represented in many of the speeches that we have heard this evening.
I accept that, if I had a large number of constituents who had been subjected to irksome and harassing interference with their freedom of travel between different parts of the United Kingdom, I should perhaps have looked at the legislation in the way in which some hon. Members have looked at it. But, just as they have made it clear that they condemn terrorism, even though they might be against the order, I hope that they will accept that those of us who support the order and its extension are equally determined to defend the liberties of the individual and are reluctant to see any such impositions placed on the citizens of this country as are embodied in the order. Equally, one has to accept that in the circumstances it may be necessary to give the Government certain additional powers.
Although we can argue strongly that the order should be applied uniformly and fairly, and although we can argue about how it is applied, there is also an argument about whether the Government need additional powers in order to defend our citizens. We know, too, that the threat to the people will come from only a small number of individuals. The bombing outrages committed in Great Britain in the past were committed by only a tiny handful of people. But that tiny handful of people brought home to the people of Great Britain the reality of the horror with which the people of Ulster have lived for so many years.
It is easy to forget the horrified reaction of people to some of the indiscriminate bombings which we have experienced, with bombs being left in,


railway stations, in letter boxes and in restaurants. Any parent who has learned of a bomb left near the school which his child attends that luckily has not gone off knows how a bomb can threaten innocent lives. That horror could start again tomorrow, and it is complacent to believe that the threat has receded.

Mr. Robin Corbett: If the hon. Member is such an ardent supporter of this wretched legislation, how can he say that the horror could start again tomorrow? The Government's case is that the order is preventing all this terrorism.

Mr. Moate: I accept what the Home Secretary said about these provisions having contributed to the peace which has prevailed in this country for the past 12 months. It would be the height of folly to drop these powers unless others were put in their place. But it would be greatly offensive to our citizens to believe that we should sweep away these powers simply because there have been no terrorist incidents in this country in the past 12 months.
At present, when it appears that the security forces in Northern Ireland are being more successful, it is likely that at some stage the terrorists will transfer their activities to Great Britain if they can do so easily. To make movement easier now by taking away these restrictions would be to offer an open invitation to terrorists to turn to the softer targets in Great Britain.
The Government are right to ask for the renewal of these powers. Equally, they are right to review them and to ensure that they are being applied as fairly as possible. It is necessary to examine them to ensure that they make continuing sense. Certainly we want them to be temporary, and they should be subject to the constant scrutiny which Government supporters sitting below the Gangway have given them. They should be subject to the sort of examination which the Home Secretary has put in hand. But I cannot see that for the next year or two—and perhaps longer—we shall not need additional powers to ensure that the terrorists who are still active in Northern Ireland do not gain the impression that it will be easy for them to come here and attempt to terrorise the

populations of London and of other towns and villages in Great Britain.
I hope that the Home Secretary will secure his proposed 12 months renewal of these powers, and I hope that those hon. Members who say that there should be only a three months extension will, because they have not got that option, accept the logic of their own argument and not vote against this proposal.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. Stan Thorne: I hope that the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) will forgive me if I do not pursue his line of argument. The essence of his contribution seemed to be speculation, and I do not want to follow him down that road.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), following his excellent analysis of the arguments involved in appraising this measure, did not come to the conclusion which seemed to follow from his arguments. That was that we should be voting against the Act rather than waiting for some report from a noble Lord in the other place about how the Act has worked.
The earlier parts of his contribution, sensibly showed how the Act since its inception has been very questionable in a number of ways. I do not want to reiterate some of the arguments that were put during the first debate in 1974, but there was a general acceptance by many hon. Members that we were discussing an issue that affected individual liberty to a tremendous degree. I remember the words of one old philosopher:
Liberty is a highly precious thing and as such, it ought to be rationed.
If we accept that approach, it seems that we are in the business as legislators here in determining how we shall ration and whom we shall ration in this context.
The Home Secretary has made his case that we are to ration the liberty of a section of the community in the interests of destroying the ASU, but he has not given a bit of evidence that would encourage us to believe that the Prevention of Terrorism Act has prevented or can or will prevent terrorism. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ron Thomas) and others pointed out that there are already on the statute book sufficient police powers to enable the implementation of the sort of things that


the Home Secretary wants done in regard to the ASU.
There was an admission from the previous Home Secretary that these were Draconian measures that he was introducing. He gave us all the impression—I hope that it was not a hypocritical approach on his part—that he very much regretted having to take this measure but thought that in time it would be possible to ensure that it was the temporary measure that it claims to be.
I suggest that the main purpose of the Act is to discriminate against the Irish people who live on this side of the Irish Sea. Its purpose is to attempt to obtain information about their political views, their political activities and generally to apply constraints on those activities arising from the existence of this piece of legislation.
The detentions that have taken place have resulted in 95 per cent. of those who have been detained not being charged with any offence. That means that 95 per cent. of those detained were deprived of their liberty for two, three or seven days, and, it seems, without any compensation.
I question whether there is any way in which one can compensate anybody for depriving him of his liberty for a few days, particularly as—some of my colleagues have indicated this earlier—the circumstances in which this takes place are complete secrecy, no messages to the family and no messages to anyone outside the captivity imposed by the police.
If there is a way in which anybody being detained can get a message indirectly to a Member of Parliament, what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West indicates how inept he felt in attempting to represent such a person in those circumstances. In the case of exclusion orders, again, no charges need be made known to the person concerned or anybody who might seek to help him in any way. He is merely deported and given the opportunity to make a way for himself and his family, with the stigma that must inevitably attach to the fact that he has been excluded from the United Kingdom.
I make only one last point, Mr. Speaker, because I do not want to go on your "over eight minutes" list. I make this point to the Home Secretary. Let us conceive of a situation in which

there is a General Election between now and the ending of this 12-month period. The Home Secretary may be satisfied—but I am not—that the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, who might just, by some accident, occupy the position of Prime Minister of this country, would have a great deal of hesitation in using the prevention of terrorism legislation against some trade unionists in Britain.
Let us recall the inadequacy of the definition of "terrorism" that is contained in the Act. I can imagine a very difficult industrial relations situation, because Opposition Members are the architects of industrial conflict when they are in power. Screwing the workers is their traditional position. In those circumstances there could well be a picket at which someone was speaking on something of the lines of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), and he may even look a bit like the hon. Member. What sort of position would he be likely to be in if picked up by a policeman who had considerable sympathy with the sort of powers that we are giving to policemen under the Act? I shudder to think what could be done by an unscrupulous Home Secretary in the event of our ever having the catastrophe of another Conservative Government.
It is against that background that I urge the Home Secretary to think again. Even though I put the question to him earlier about the role of Lord Shackleton and the periodicity of the Act, I take the view, as do most of my hon. Friends who are present in the Chamber now, that we should vote against the Act. There is no case now, although there might have been one when the Act was introduced, for perpetuating the Act. The House would be doing a service in the interests of liberty of the individual if it voted against the renewal of these provisions.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Tom Litterick: I have no compunction about reciting for the umpteenth time the reasons why the House should see the Act as an entirely objectionable piece of legislation. I have been over this course every time it has come before us, and these reasons need to be repeated over and over again—if only because the State insists on


repeating its reasons for continuing to have this legislation.
The State has no argument to offer, other than the original argument that there is a threat. We all know that the origin of that was a single event in one city in Britain, which the Government Front Bench lamentably and shamefully used as an occasion for a hasty piece of legislation which was designed to convince a properly shocked public that something was being done, and nothing more. As we have learnt on every attempt at renewal by Home Secretaries since then, the Government are not able to justify this Act in terms of results, in terms of positive, constructive benefit to the British people.
That is why the worthy Lord Shackle-ton was appointed. It was because no Home Secretary is able to justify this legislation, so he needs a fall guy, a patsy—

Mr. Merlyn Rees: A what?

Mr. Litterick: —a symbol, and above all, he needs time.
The Home Secretary will have to take tutorials in English colloquialism.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Anti-Irish.

Mr. Litterick: My right hon. Friend ought to know better than that. It is an American colloquialism.
May I get on with my speech? This is the first time that I have been banned by a Home Secretary. I think that my right hon. Friend quite enjoys the experience.
The Government had to appoint Lord Shackleton to buy time, since the promise was made a year ago to appoint a person to investigate the operation of the Act and it took such a very long time to find someone who was properly qualified to do this strange and uniquely important job—nine months in fact—with the result that we are now asked once again to renew this damned legislation for a year. This means that it is guaranteed—we all know what the result of a Division will be—for another 12 months on the statute book, regardless of what Lord Shackle-ton says. The Home Secretary and the State are safe for another 12 months. It means that the State is safe—

Mr. Merlyn Rees: And the people.

Mr. Litterick: It means that the State is safe, although the Home Secretary has not been able to prove once during the last three years that this legislation has been of benefit.

Sir M. Havers: Does the hon. Member remember the appalling disasters at Guildford and Woolwich? Does he remember how this provision was responsible for the detention of those who committed these atrocities?

Mr. Litterick: Prove it. The right hon. and learned Member makes the mistake of believing that because someone is charged under a piece of legislation, that is the only piece of legislation under which that individual could have been charged. That is not the case. For example, the men who were subsequently charged and convicted of the horrendous Birmingham bombings were charged and convicted under the previous legislation. Incidentally, they were arrested within 24 hours of the bombing. They were arrested days before being charged, and they were held incommunicado without the benefit of this hellish legislation. The police had adequate powers then to apprehend and hold these people incommunicado without the powers conferred by this Act.
It is wrong to say that subsequent arrests could have been made only because of this legislation being on the statute book. The right hon. and learned Member forgets that arrests and detentions were made before this legislation was on the statute book. It did not seem to worry the police that they violated the civil liberties of those they arrested before this Act was in force. Nobody seemed to worry about it.

Mr. F. A. Burden: If the police had sufficient and adequate powers without this Act, why is there such opposition to it? If it provided no further powers than those the police already had, why is the hon. Member so worried about it?

Mr. Litterick: I thought that I was in the business of opposing the Act. I do not wish it to be renewed, because I believe that sufficient powers exist without it to enable the authorities to cope with terrorism.

Mr. Burden: Then what is all the fuss about?

Mr. Litterick: I do not think that the hon. Member can be well. The fact is that the traditional liberties of the citizen have been violated in a new way by this Act and the police have been, to a significant degree, politicised in so far as the Act enables them to make political judgments about human beings before taking them into custody. That political judgment has now been made a reason for taking them into custody. That is a significant step towards a police State. I am not saying that we have arrived at the police State, but we are familiarising our people with the concepts and precepts of the police State by a process of gradualism. We are familiarising them with the idea that it is right to arrest someone without charge and to hold him incommunicado without charge, and that it is right for the police to make a political judgment about a human being. It is not all right; it is fundamentally wrong.
I make a point about the Conservative Party. There is a peculiar set of double standards in operation within the Conservative Party vis-à-vis its atitude to the State. I hope that the few Conservative Members present will pay attention to this point. I have been in this House for a short time—a little more than three years—but never a week passes before some Conservative Member rises to his feet to shriek about the iniquities of the State wishing to take action on property rights. More often than not, Conservatives complain about taxation.
It is noticeable that the Conservatives are quick to attack the State when it appears to impinge on property rights, but when a request or demand is made by the State to acquire new powers over physical liberties and citizenship by our wonderful Bobbies, as they are so often described, when they are given greater power over the citizen or when our Service men are given similar powers—and let us remember that both are agents of the State—whole regiments of Tories rise to their feet shouting choruses of approval. In other words, it is all right that the State should physically violate the liberty of citizens, but it is not all right, apparently, for the State to take action against property. The Tories adopt double standards. They are against the people, but they are for property.
In this debate the Tories have demonstrated this attitude again. That is not surprising, because it comes naturally to them. If one gives more power to agents of the State in uniform, that is acceptable, but if one seeks to give more power to the Department of Industry or the Treasury to take action on behalf of the community against property, that, according to the Tories, is an outrage. They apply double standards and it is utter hypocrisy. Those Conservatives do not serve the community well.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Irving: I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the fact that I was unable to be present in the opening stages of this debate. I shall make only a brief intervention.
I support reluctantly the need for this legislation. I am always sorry when the normal processes of justice have to be suspended, but I believe that basically this legislation seeks to protect the public and is designed to prevent such horrific happenings as those that occurred in Birmingham, Aldershot and Guildford.
I also accept the integrity and judgment of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, whom I have known for over 30 years since we were undergraduates together. However, I welcome Lord Shackleton's inquiry because some of the procedures leave something to be desired, particularly in respect of exclusion orders.
John McKenna, a constituent of mine, was taken to Gravesend police station early in the morning of Monday 23rd January. I do not know whether he is guilty, but he was kept incommunicado until the Thursday without being allowed to see a solicitor. It is difficult enough to contest that kind of charge without being excluded from advice for practically the whole of the period of 96 hours during which there is an opportunity to appeal. I hope that some examination of the procedures will be possible when Lord Shackleton reports.
It also makes difficult the examination of counter-charges that are almost inevitably made in such cases. There have been allegations on the other side about the tapping by the police of solicitors' telephone lines and of brutality by the Royal


Ulster Constabulary at Gravesend police station. It is alleged that somebody represented himself as a solicitor intending presumably to obtain some kind of confession. If the procedures were tidied up, it would make it much more possible for such allegations to be properly examined in the course of the inquiry.
One of the allegations appears to be that my constituent was involved in the Birmingham bombing. I understand from a Sunday newspaper that the RUC now says that it is satisfied that my constituent was not there. Has my right hon. Friend anything to say on that point?
The other matter that I wish to raise is the timing of exclusion orders. My constituent was kept at Gravesend police station from early Monday morning until late Friday evening and the exclusion order was made after 6 p.m. on Friday—when the Home Office had closed. It

heightens the difficulty of solicitors and hon. Members if such orders are made at weekends, when it is difficult to contact the Home Office and get the sort of assurances that are necessary in such cases. At the same time, I place on record my grateful thanks to the civil servants I eventually contacted for their help over that weekend.
By coincidence, confirmation of the order was made a fortnight earlier, again after 6 p.m. on Friday, and it was difficult for inquiries to be made about the fate of the man's wife and her two children, who may not have been involved in any act of which the husband may have been guilty. Indeed, the wife had never been to Northern Ireland.
I hope that when Lord Shackleton reports, some of these procedures can be tidied up. I support the legislation, but I hope that it will not have to be continued for much longer.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: After listening to the Home Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers), I had not intended to intervene, but the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) draws me to my feet to reply to some of his comments.
I was about to apologise for the fact that I have not heard part of the debate, but since the hon. Member for Selly Oak stood up, blew up and blew out, I see no need to apologise for commenting on his speech in his absence. The hon. Gentleman described the legislation as hellish and claimed that it was brought in by the Home Secretary as a result of an isolated incident in a single town. We should make clear that this is not so.
Before the change of Government in 1974, there were various outrageous bombing incidents in London. As a Minister in the Home Office, I shared the concern of the whole House about the damage to life and property caused by the bombings and serious consideration was given to bringing in legislation of this nature.
The advice given to the Home Office at that time was that the balance was against bringing in a Bill because of the difficulty of proscribing individual organisations, the possibility that they might avoid proscription simply by changing their names and the fact that such an Act would inevitably be to some degree an attack on what we look upon as basic liberties in this country. After a great deal of consideration, no measure was introduced. However, I have no doubt that the Government, faced with the outrage at Birmingham and other actions, were right to accept that the balance of the argument had fallen the other way and that the Act was necessary.
Let us be clear what the Act does. It proscribes an organisation which is aimed at causing destruction in this country. It provides power for the Home Secretary to exclude anyone if he believes it is expedient to do so in order to prevent acts of terrorism in this country, and it gives him the power, on his personal decision, to extend the length of time that a person may be held in custody in this country.
Far from being a hellish piece of legislation, as the hon. Member for Selly Oak suggests, it is, regrettably, necessary in order to prevent people and property being damaged and attacked by terrorism in this country.

Miss Jo Richardson: The hon. and learned Gentleman is expert in this subject. Would he not agree that most of the provisions in the Prevention of Terrorism Act are covered by other statutes? I should be grateful to hear what he has to say.

Mr. Carlisle: I have no doubt that acts of terrorism, when committed, can be adequately dealt with under other parts of the law. Where this Act takes us further is in providing prevention of the act of terrorism rather than conviction of the person who has committed it. Therefore, a new power—and, I believe, a necessary new power in the circumstances as the Home Office then saw it—was the power to exclude those who, it was feared, were coming here for the purpose of committing acts of terrorism in future.
The hon. Lady will accept from me, I think, that, as any lawyer in the House will know, the necessary evidence to prove attempts to commit offences is very difficult to obtain, because it does not cover preparation, whereas here one is taking basically a preventive power rather than a power to convict those who have committed offences. One is stopping terrorism occurring.
Happily, as has been said, we have seen a substantial reduction in terrorist activity, but when one sees what has happened recently in Northern Ireland, one cannot believe that the threat is wholly excluded. As long as that threat to our property and to the lives of the people of this country exists, the Government are right to take what I am sure they have been advised by the powers involved are the necessary powers to fight that terrorism. I believe that the House should support the Home Secretary tonight.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) talks about the preparations that were made under the previous Administration. One oddity of life is that one


cannot see the papers of a previous Administration, but I can well believe that consideration was given to legislation such as was eventually introduced.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Irving), who reminded me that we have known each other a long time, raised a constituency case. I mentioned earlier the article in The Sunday Times and said that I hoped the information in it would lead its writer to see Lord Shackleton. In my view the statistical information is wrong, but anyone who feels strongly enough to write such an article should bring the information forward.
However, the Kent police have authorised me to say that they are not in disagreement with the RUC about this case. It is important that I should get that on the record. Nor is it true that the RUC believes that the exclusion orders are made on inadequate grounds. Having been involved in these matters now to a much greater degree than when I was in Northern Ireland, I just felt that that article was misconceived and that the need for the legislation and its form had not been understood.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne)—there seems to be a regular swish out of the Chamber at this time of night; I wonder whether the notes that I have made are really necessary. My hon. Friend has left the Chamber. It may be for the benefit of the House if I do not reply to my hon. Friend and move on.
It is my opinion that exclusion orders are important. I understand why the idea of such orders is not well received by hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies. Although they may be misnamed, there are in Northern Ireland a number of so-called battalions. There is a high command. A structure exists to provide violence. I have to take into account anybody who has been associated with that structure. I have to bear in mind that small units may be set up to repeat the sort of thing that has been done in the past. In the interests of the community here, I have to act upon that basis, but in a way that is laid down in the legislation.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) asked about port con-

trol. I shall consider what he has said. Responsibility for the controls at any port is in the hands of the chief constable. Much depends on the nature of the port traffic. In some instances police manpower requires that there is selectivity in the way in which the police act at a port of entry instead of the implementation of blanket control. That applies to landing and embarkation cards. However, I shall consider the matter.
That is the sort of matter that Lord Shackleton is examining. I understand that a number of my hon. Friend have been to see Lord Shackleton, and it may be that the hon. Member for Antrim, South, who uses the airport in question with great frequency, will care to put his case to him. Lord Shackleton will be reporting to me on any matter that comes within the terms of reference that I put before the House.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) referred to Lord Shackleton as a "patsy" and things of that kind. There is no way in which I have asked Lord Shackleton to be a fall guy. I regret that that expression was used about a man for whom I have the highest regard. Lord Shackleton will do what he wants without considering my views. That is why I asked him to do the job. He will have access to confidential information. He has had full access to papers in the Home Office. He has been given full cooperation by the police. It is obvious that not all the information should be made public, but the information will be made available to Lord Shacklton.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) made some remarks about what is going on in Merseyside. I suggest to my hon. Friend that it would be very much better if he spoke to Lord Shackleton on the allegations that he has made. That is the purpose of Lord Shackleton's inquiry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), who has been to see me on a number of occasions on these matters, mentioned Section 11. That is the provision which was put into the 1976 Act at the initial suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). It was before my time as Secretary


of State, and I understand that the Government were a little hesitant about the advantages of the provision but on balance were convinced. It is one of the provisions on which Lord Shackleton's views will be of particular interest.
The section makes it an offence to withhold information about terrorism. It was aimed at the man or woman who knows that a bomb is to be planted, although he or she is not actively approving of the action, and keeps quiet. That has been the position on a number of occasions that I know of in Northern Ireland. It was put in the legislation, and Lord Shackleton may consider that if he so wishes. No instructions have been given.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scotland Exchange and other hon. Members mentioned the Judges' Rules and the length of time that people can be kept in detention without relatives or solicitors being informed. Section 62 of the Criminal Law Act and the Judges' Rules are still there. I have discussed with hon. Members a circular which should go to the police. The police have also been discussing the matter among themselves. Section 62 was deliberately drawn to refer to this legislation as well as to the ordinary legislation that applies in this country. That section is not separate from the prevention of terrorism legislation.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that the legislation in England is different from that in Scotland? Therefore, would it be reasonable for Lord Shackleton to consider how far the police feel handicapped in Scotland because the legislation there is different from English legislation?

Mr. Rees: Certainly Lord Shackleton can do that. But I say to my hon. Friend—when I say "but", that is not qualifying what I say; it is a qualification for my own statement—Section 62 applies to England and Wales. That is what the House decided in the Criminal Law Act. Historically, the way that it is done in Scotland is a separate matter. The Criminal Law Act cannot apply there. However, if Lord Shackleton wants to consider how it is done in Scotland, that is entirely a matter for him. In the longer term, the Royal Commission on criminal and prosecuting procedure, which will take some time, is, I like to

think, one of the most important investigations which will take place in my time at the Home Office.
Comparison with Scotland is important. Other aspects arise from the Confait case, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) played a part.
The right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) put the matter correctly in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) about other legislation. The prevention of terrorism legislation is designed to prevent terrorism. It is not another series of laws to deal with those who have weapons and commit murder or other crimes. It is not surprising that people are taken to court and charged with offences under other legislation, because that is the substantive nature of the charge. If, within the limited parts of the prevention of terrorism legislation as opposed to exclusion orders and extra detention for more than 48 hours, there is a charge to put before a court, as with Section 11, that is a separate matter.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) asked, as did some of my hon. Friends, whether the Act is any longer necessary. That is a perfectly proper question to ask about the legislation. Lord Shackleton is looking not at the principle of it—I keep saying that that is a matter for the House—but at the way that it works.
I come back to the point about there being plenty of law for dealing with terrorism. The problem that we have to face is that in a normal murder, if I may put it that way, the police step in to find out who has committed it. With terrorism, there are self-confessed members of organisations who, to get their political ends, state that they will kill and murder.

Mr. Ron Thomas: And we dump them in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Rees: Let me stick to the dumping in Northern Ireland part. On that point my hon. Friend is allied with the right hon. Member for Down, South. That is as may be. There are in Northern Ireland para-military organisations. One is the Provisional IRA. There are others on the Protestant side. With one or two exceptions, the Provisional IRA has brought its battle to this side of the


water. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is concerned about the UVF and the other organisations there. I am not so concerned about the UVF on this side of the water, because generally—one has to be very careful—it is the Provisional IRA which gets involved in violence in this country.
It is my job to balance civil rights with the fact that there is a terrorist organisation which tries to get bombing material and weapons into this country. I have to bear in mind that the members of that organisation would not stop at killing and murdering. If ordinary people who have never had a political thought in their minds are involved in action against such people, that is part of the cost.

Mr. Corbett: A total of 3,000 people have been detained under the Act, and 95 per cent. of them have not been charged with anything. Is my right hon. Friend really saying that the main reason for picking them up is that they are suspected of being members or supporters of the IRA and that that is sufficient to knock them off? If that is the case, is he saying that there is no other legislation to deal with them? Do we not have conspiracy charges?

Mr. Rees: I shall have to look in the dictionary to see exactly what "knocking off" means. We have reformed the conspiracy legislation and I shall not go into that. I have to take into account that there are people who are involved in a para-military organisation. I have to decide whether individuals have changed their minds. I have to decide whether they come here to get away from the situation or to assist the terrorists. I have to protect the body politic because at some time the bombings and shootings that we have known in the past might happen again.

Mr. Burden: No doubt the Home Secretary takes into account the views of

Division No. 150]
AYES
[10.51 p.m.


Anderson, Donald
Brotherton, Michael
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)


Ashton, Joe
Buchanan, Richard
Cryer, Bob


Bates, Alf
Burden, F. A.
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)


Beith, A. J.
Campbell, Ian
Davidson, Arthur


Berry, Hon Anthony
Carlisle, Mark
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Cartwright, John
Deakins, Eric


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Dempsey, James


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cohen, Stanley
Doig, Peter


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Dormand, J. D.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cowans, Harry
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the intelligence that he has on the people brought to his notice who come here and are known to have associations with terrorist organisations. Is it not right that he should take precautions to ensure that they do not practise their violence and terrorism in this country?

Mr. Rees: It is right that I should do so.
There is a danger—it happened at the time of the Birmingham bombings—that the substantial Irish population which has lived here for some time will come under suspicion. This happens from time to time. I have good reasons for knowing that sometimes an Irish person's name or accent leads to problems. But the vast majority of the Irish here do not feel that they are being terrorised. The majority play an important part in the life of our community.
It would be a grave mistake to believe that the Irish population all vote the same way. Perhaps they do in certain areas, but not in general. I say this because of the things that are said outside the House about the nature of the Irish community. It plays an important part in the life of our community. The Irish population is not terrorised by this legislation. It is right to renew the legislation.
The Shackleton Report will come. I have made my promise about a discussion in the House. Lord Shackleton can look at any aspect of the prevention of terrorism legislation that he wishes. That was a suggestion that I made to the House last year. There is a continuing need for legislation of this kind. Is it the right sort of legislation? That is what Lord Shackleton should examine. In the meantime, I commend the order to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 21.

Duffy, A. E. P.
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sever, John


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McElhone, Frank
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Macfarlane, Neil
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


George, Bruce
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Gilbart, Dr John
Maclennan, Robert
Stradling Thomas, J.


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Strang, Gavin


Golding, John
Madden, Max
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Gourlay, Harry
Marks, Kenneth
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tinn, James


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mitchell, Austin
Ward, Michael


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Moate, Roger
Weatherill, Bernard


Hawkins, Paul
Molloy, William
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Hooson, Emlyn
Molyneaux, James
White, James (Pollok)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Noble, Mike
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


John, Brynmor
Oakes, Gordon
Winterton, Nicholas


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Woodall, Alec


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Palmer, Arthur
Woof, Robert


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Penhaligon, David
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Kaufman, Gerald
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Younger, Hon George


Knight, Mrs Jill
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)



Lambie, David
Robinson, Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lamborn, Harry
Roderick, Caerwyn
Mr. Ted Graham and


Lawrence, Ivan
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Le Merchant, Spencer
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)





NOES


Canavan, Dennis
Litterick, Tom
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Clemitson, Ivor
Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Corbett, Robin
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mikardo, Ian



Flannery, Martin
Ovenden, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kerr, Russell
Parry, Robert
Miss Jo Richardson and


Lamond, James
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 23rd February, be approved.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON SOUND BROADCASTING

Motion made,
That Miss Betty Boothroyd, Mr. Robert Cooke, Mr. Clement Freud, Mr. Robert Mellish, Sir Anthony Royle and Mr. Nigel Spearing be Members of the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting.—[Mr. Tinn.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SWALE (HOSPITAL)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Roger Moate: My object in seeking this Adjournment debate is specifically to draw attention to the need for a new general hospital in

the Swale area. I emphasise that this is the ultimate target. If we could gain acceptance for that, by implication there would be acceptance for all the other elements in the long-term capital programme for hospital development needed in the Medway health district. That district includes much of the Swale area.
Essentially, what I am trying to do is to see whether we can get a commitment to a sustained programme of major capital investment in the Medway health district to cover the next 15 to 20 years. I understand that such a commitment has not been unusual elsewhere nationally, and particularly in the case of teaching hospital development programmes. Just such a programme has been set out in the district plan of the Medway health district, published in September 1977. I understand that this plan has been endorsed by the Kent health authority, and I hope that it will be approved by the region and the Government.
The background to the plan is one of serious deprivation in terms of hospital facilities in the Medway district. I do not think that there is any dispute about the facts. The case has been put strongly in Adjournment debates raised by the


hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bean) and more recently by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Oven-den). The case has been pressed frequently and tirelessly by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), who is hoping to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This emphasises very much the fact that this is in no way a party political matter. Its history spans many previous Governments, and I suspect that before it is solved many future Governments will be involved.
The debates we have had recently have concentrated largely on the serious shortage of revenue available to Medway health district for the maintenance of our existing services. On 3rd March the Minister of State acknowledged that this year only £78 is being spent per person in Kent compared with £108 in Greenwich and Bexley and £122 in Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham. Incidentally, the Minister of State said that he intends to visit the district later this year. May I say how welcome he will be? I hope that he will find time to visit us in the Swale part of the district and see how inadequate are our hospital facilities.
There is no doubt that Kent as a whole is relatively under-funded. It is acknowledged that, within Kent, Medway is one of the most deprived districts. It is worth emphasising that, compared with the target allocations under the formula of the Resource Allocation Working Party, Medway is under-funded by £4 million, Maidstone by £5 million and Canterbury and Thanet—which includes part of the Swale district—by £6 million, which Kent as a whole is under-funded by £22·2 million.
Comparatively, the teaching area of Lambeth and Lewisham is, in theory at least, over-funded by £23 million. I say "in theory" because in practice I am beginning to think that the RAWP formula is in many respects unworkable and should be reviewed. It might work well in a period of increasing resources, but I question whether it really can work in a period of restriction. Can it really work when poorer districts can be helped only by the closure of hospitals in other districts? I regret to say that in the short term we seem to have very little hope of any substantial improvement in the revenue situation.
The extent of our deficiency in hospital services is quite dramatic. According to Government standards, we should have over 1,900 hospital beds. We have about 1,000. That is a shortage of 900 beds. Looking at the figures for the average daily bed provision per thousand population, we find that Medway is right at the dismal bottom of the league table, both for Kent and the South-East Region, and we are way behind the Department's own recommended guidelines. This means longer waiting lists and that many patients have to travel longer distances for treatment. It means that in our area we face acute shortages in geriatric and maternity services and in acute surgery and psychiatric services.
Looking at the provision of capital funds, we see that the region comes out badly. Apart from massive investment such as £45 million for St. Thomas's Hospital and Guy's Hospital alone, the region has regularly had the lowest share of capital per head of population of all the regions in the country. This year the figure is £3·3 per head, compared with £9·2 per head in the best region. No new hospital has been completed in the South-East Thames Region since the start of the National Health Service in 1948, with the exception of Greenwich Hospital.
How is this great gap in the Medway area to be filled, and what assurances can the Government give to the people of Medway that in future adequate hospitals will be available? A programme has been drawn up for Medway and for Swale. This programme includes a number of major hospital developments. It includes the long overdue expansion of the Medway Hospital to provide, among other services, for extra geriatric, psychiatric and acute surgical services. It includes the improvement of All Saints' Hospital, with a first priority for the new special care baby unit. It includes the phased provision of a second major hospital, ultimately to have 500 beds, in the Swale area. As the plan puts it, the site acquisition for this "should be pursued immediately".
I emphasise that the intention to develop Medway Hospital to its full potential as an 800-bed district general hospital was agreed by the regional board in the 1960s. My hon. Friend the


Member for Gillingham knows all about this, because he has been involved in it for so long.
Today we only have phase one, with 213 beds, and it is likely to be the mid-1980s before we see phase two completed, if we are lucky. Also, the idea of providing a second major hospital within the health district is not new. It was recognised and agreed by the former regional hospital board. The only change is that it is now the view that this second hospital should not be built on a site which would have been fairly close to the Medway Hospital but should be situated within the Swale area, to meet the needs of that expanding population. There is a strong case for this.
The population of Medway itself has increased by 30 per cent in each of the last two decades, and the population of Swale has also expanded substantially. It is significant that there is an exceptionally high proportion of young people and that this is expected to increase the demand for hospital facilities certainly into the 1990s. Therefore, it makes sense to have a new hospital in Swale. We accept that this is something for the longer term, but there will be no hope of achieving it even for the next generation, let alone the present one, unless we earmark a site now for the hospital and take steps to secure it now.
It is very difficult for the health authorities to make such a commitment when they are so desperately concerned to find enough revenue to maintain existing services, but it is our job to look ahead. This is where the Government can give the necessary backing to the region and to the district by supporting this capital programme.
I think that the case for the Swale hospital has been made very effectively in the Medway plan for which we are seeking Government support. A plan has been agreed for the provision of a new 28-bed geriatric unit at the Keycol Hospital. There is a desperate shortage of in-patient geriatric services, and this unit is needed. There is no conflict there with the long-term idea of a proposed Swale hospital development. I do not know whether there is yet an indication that the money for the Keycol project will be made available, but I hope that it will be soon.
Although we are talking about new hospital facilities, there is no fundamental belief that the answer to health care is simply to build bigger, better and more hospitals. That point has been made clearly and emphatically in the health district report, and the health care planning team emphasises that it sees the provision of in-patient services as being combined with the equally important aim of reducing the need for hospital care and treatment by developing community and primary care. But our case is that the existing provision of hospital facilities falls far below the minimum needed to provide adequate and decent hospital services for the people of the Medway and Swale area.
Before allowing my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham to make his contribution, I ought to say that, in emphasising the need for a new hospital and in making a plea for it by drawing attention to the inadequacy of our present services, I do not wish it to be thought that I am denigrating the staff in our present hospitals, who do a splendid job of work, and the many voluntary organisations which give so much of their time and effort to supporting the existing hospitals. Even if we get a new Swale hospital, when we get the expansion and improvement of the hospitals about which we are talking there will still probably be some sort of role in the National Health Service for many of those hospitals.
Although the Minister may not be able to promise us the money, I hope that he will at least be able to promise a sympathetic look at the need in the Swale area for a new district general hospital.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) for giving me a few moments, and in the short time available to me I shall not go into the figures which he has already given and of which I have no doubt that the Minister will take note. But I emphasise that two hon. Members on his own side of the House have joined me and my hon. Friend in pursuing the need for the improvement of health services in the Medway towns. It is perhaps unusual for hon. Members on both sides of the House to act together in this way. However, when we do, it indicates that we all have the same purpose


at heart and that we believe the matter to be extremely important. It also means, of course, that we can bring added pressure to bear on whatever Government may be in power at the time in order to improve the situation.
I have been a Member of the House for a long time, and I have been pressing the case for an improvement in the health services in the Medway towns for many years. Recently, the Under-Secretary of State came to Medway to see conditions for himself after we had represented to him that the health services were in a critical state. He did not disagree with us. Then we saw the Secretary of State. He, too, agreed with the arguments that we put forward. Alas, he was not able to give us very much encouragement that anything could be done to improve our revenue position—an improvement which is necessary if we are to maintain services at their existing level.
Now we are promised a visit from the Minister of State, and tonight we have replying to this debate no less a person than the Minister with responsibility for the disabled. He should realise that the National Health Service in the Medway towns is disabled, and I hope that he will do as much for that as he does for those people for whom he shows so much sympathy and compassion in doing his job.
The position is really serious. We have been to the South-East Thames Regional Health Authority to express our views about the need for capital investment in the area. But, although the authority's representatives were sympathetic, they held out practically no hope.
I happen to believe that the National Health Service is in a very sad state in the whole country, and I hope that the Minister will not disagree with that. But in Medway it is in a much more critical condition than it is in practically any part of the country. The extraordinary feature is that because it is in Kent, which is supposed to be a comparatively well-off area, there seems to be less care and less intention to provide money even to hold the present position than there is in some of the areas in the North which are under-privileged from the health point of view.
The Minister must make up his mind to do something for Medway. I hope that he will have consulted his right hon. Friend and that he will realise that, no matter how long it may take, the Members for the area in and surrounding Medway will continue to press the interests of their area and the tragic need for improving the health services there, and that we shall do so not merely on a party basis but as Members from both major parties in the House. If for no other reason, the Minister must take note that unity on such a subject as this means that the need is extremely great.

11.15 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I congratulate the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) on having secured a debate on this important subject and on his very proper determination to ensure that problems affecting the health services in Medway are fully and publicly discussed.
My ministerial colleagues have been involved in consideration of these problems on a number of occasions. As the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) has mentioned, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins), replied to an Adjournment debate and then visited the district last summer. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services received a delegation of the four Medway Members just before Christmas. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security replied to a further Adjournment debate less than two weeks ago in which he announced that he would be visiting the district later this year. The hon. Member for Faversham referred to my hon. Friend's forthcoming visit. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will want to consider the claims of Swale when the programme for his visit is being drawn up.
I am aware of the sustained interest that the hon. Member for Gillingham has taken in the whole question of National Health Service provision for Medway. Both he and the hon. Member for Faversham have fully appreciated in their speeches tonight the deep interest and concern of my hon. Friends the Members for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bean)


and Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden). As both hon. Members have mentioned, there is no party animus whatever in this very important matter.
One further introductory point that I must make is that the Government have planned to allow resources for health and personal social services to increase over the next few years. Hon. Members will recall that details of the decisions taken in the public expenditure survey of 1976 were given in paragraph 1.6 of our publication "The Way Forward", which covers both capital and revenue expenditure to 1979–80.
On this occasion we are referring specifically to capital expenditure. Previous debates have focused mainly on revenue funding, which is a quite different matter. It is necessary to establish a clear distinction between the two kinds of resource allocation, not because Medway is acknowledged to be deficient in only one of them—quite the reverse—but because the means of overcoming the deficiencies differ according to whether one refers to capital or revenue.
As the House knows, the redistribution of revenue funds on a year-by-year basis is related to target figures determined in accordance with the criteria laid down by the Resource Allocation Working Party—RAWP. The Government are firmly committed to bringing about a fairer distribution on these lines. However, we must recognise that the pace of change will be influenced by a variety of factors, which were debated here as recently as 3rd March and which indicate that progress will be slow at first.
So we come back to the question of meeting the immediate hospital needs of the growing populations in Medway and elsewhere by other means. An expedient we naturally cannot afford to dismiss is that they should continue to look to the Inner London hospitals for at least certain types of service. The more specialised types in particular are often located at the major teaching hospitals and are meant to cover the whole region anyway. In addition, these teaching hospitals are, of course, centres of medical education and research. Although the population of their immediate area has declined, the number of students has not. Moreover, we want to maintain the number of medical students, since their education is

vital for the future of the National Health Service. As far as can be seen, we shall be needing more doctors rather than fewer if we are to make good the shortages of specialists in most of the under-doctored areas in future.
The location of the three teaching hospitals in South-East London makes them reasonably accessible to most other parts of the region, and they have traditionally drawn patients from those parts. However, there is the cost of travel for patients and their visitors, and it is wholly understandable that the Medway should look forward to the provision of adequate facilities nearer home. The provision of such facilities will, of course, demand a great deal of capital investment.
While the need is acknowledged, there are a number of complicating factors, notably that the better-provided areas which are aiming to release revenue funds by rationalising their services may yet be obliged to incur a certain amount of capital expenditure in the course of such rationalisation. There is also an overriding commitment to continue the funding of major capital developments which are already in progress. So we cannot proceed towards equalisation of capital resources in the same way as for revenue, by setting notional targets and then urging health authorities to move steadily towards them over a period of years. A somewhat different approach is needed.
The Resource Allocation Working Party made recommendations for the distribution of capital in the longer term, but they have not been positively accepted for immediate implementation. The exact method to be adopted is still undetermined, but in the meantime the Secretary of State has decided that capital resource assumptions for the years from 1978 to 1980 will be calculated broadly in line with the RAWP principles. It is possible that the method of distribution finally adopted will be influenced by the review of National Health Service capital currently being carried out by the Department.
The 1977–78 and 1978–79, cash limits have been calculated in line broadly with the RAWP recommendations for the transitional phase to provide for contractual commitments as well as a minimum sum for other capital expenditure. In calculating the resource assumptions to be notified in the 1978 planning guidelines


for the years from 1979–80, the method recommended by RAWP has been used with some modifications.
In the Department's planning guidelines for 1978–79, which are currently being issued, the capital programme for South-East Thames Regional Health Authority is set at around £20 million per annum in real terms for up to 10 years ahead, although there will be variations from year to year. Regions are also being urged to consider the effect on their priorities of significant variations—up to 10 per cent—on either side of the cumulative total for the seven years following 1981–2. Joint financing for local authority social services projects is shown separately from these figures, all of which are meant to be used in connection with the strategic planning now in progress.
As the hon. Member for Faversham has pointed out, these references to hospital development at Swale occur in the Medway health district plan of September 1977. One of the stated aims of the district strategy is to seek regional health authority commitment to
the provision of a second major hospital in the Swale area, the site acquisition for which should be pursued immediately".
It has been brought forward from earlier years and latched on to the new planning system. No cost estimate has been attempted, even for phase one, nor is it given a target starting date, however, provisional, in the outline major programme for the next 20 years. In such circumstances its destiny must seem rather speculative, especially as it involves looking beyond the strategic time scale of 10 to 15 years.
I hasten to add that the plan contains many excellent features in other respects, and it comprehensively surveys health service needs for Medway. It also stresses that the district management team will continue to provide the highest standard of service within the resources available. To this end, the team gives first priority to the development of community services in support of primary care.
The plan goes on to say that primary care will be developed in such a way that admission for hospital treatment is, where possible avoided and that where it is unavoidable it is kept to the absolute

minimum. Nevertheless, there are a number of development proposals for existing hospitals. Some have already secured a place in future capital programmes, such as the special care baby unit at All Saints' and the first phase of the Medway Hospital improvements. Others will no doubt come forward in due course on their merits, as revealed by the progress of service planning. It is encouraging to note how well they conform to the priorities which are steadily being established and to the need for better use of limited resources. Flexibility of planning will be essential in the years ahead. There will be many who see this as the way forward for health services in Medway.
The regional health authority issued in January its own draft planning guidelines, including resource assumptions, as a consultative document. When these come to be finalised next month they will, of course, take account of the national guidelines just issued. In the RHA's document, the section on distribution of capital resources refers to a second option of making more funds available for new buildings by transferring specific sums annually from the revenue account. Greater flexibility of this kind is a welcome step forward since there is no magically correct balance of resource utilisation up and down the country. The document therefore covers the distribution of capital resources throughout the region according to either option but observing the same basic principles.
Probably the most significant of these principles is that, with regard to major capital schemes, this region has in the past been criticised by the Department for spending too small a proportion of its capital allocation on major developments. This was largely due to the fact that available resources had to be used in renovating existing stock in order to maintain a viable service. The region has many small hospitals, the replacement of which should increase effectiveness and in some instances release valuable sites. Much of the capital stock is in need of complete replacement, and this is particularly true in the case of long-stay institutions. Major capital schemes would therefore help to remedy these problems and contribute to the redistribution of resources both between areas and between the various health care activities.
It is accordingly proposed to give greater emphasis to major schemes, the annual allocation being more than doubled from the current level to some £13·2 million in 1986–87. But even phase one of a new hospital such as Maid stone can cost nearly £10 million. The control—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Eleven o'clock.